Yeah, he isn't at all like all of those non-nutty politicians that want us to invade half the world, have military outposts in the other half, pay for it by printing more money, and ignore the constition whenever it is convinent.....
If you want more of the same vote for anyone except for Ron Paul.
If only his sane ideas weren't counterbalanced by his crazy ones...
What is crazy about thinking the Federal government should only do the things the constition allows it to do? And please don't say that society would collapse. We'd still have plenty of government at the state and more local levels.
Or you could support Gary Johnson, who is also opposed to the TSA, but is a REAL libertarian, unlike the poser Ron Paul who doesn't have the guts to stand up for gay marriage.
Why should the Federal Government be involved with marriage at all? I think Ron Paul's stance is that it shouldn't be a Federal issue. Don't you think it is a little hypocritical to say that you are against all instances of the Federal government stepping outside of the bounds established by the constition *except* in regards to gay marriage? To be honest I personally don't even think States should be in the business of endorcing marriages, but as there is nothing in the constition that prohibits it I guess it would be up to the individuals in each state to get marriage laws pulled.
You seem to have forgotten that most, if not all, of the states are also divided along the same lines. In each state you'll get the partisan arguments from each side over whether things are great or terrible. If one state comes up with a system that is really slick you can bet that no other states will give it a shot unless they modify so they can claim credit for it, and of course the plan will have to match the states ideological purity tests.
I think there are plenty of states right now that always swing left and plenty of other states that always swing right. Certainly enough that we could have several implementations of different conservative and liberal forms of government.
I see no problems with other states modifying something they think is working in another state before they give it a shot. Maybe their modification is best for their own state? If it works well maybe the original state can start using that idea in the future if it is applicable. If nothing else it will serve as evidence about what works and what doesn't work.
I was talking about present day terms. Even going back to the premise of the original post here it is I think ridicules to think there would still be slavery in the Southern states if not for the involvement of the Federal government. Slavery at the level that was happening in America in the 19th century ended all around the world a long time ago. There is no reason to think that the way we ended it here is the only possible way we could have ended slavery.
And you'll have a pretty hard time figuring out which way is really better as long as your country is divided between Republicans and Democrats because each side will say it's people are doing better than the other side.
Which is exactly why many of this things should not be happening at the Federal level. I think things mentioned in the constitution should be handled at the Federal level. I think for everything else states should be left to decide how they want to manage it. If one state comes up with a system that is really slick you can bet that many other states will give it a shot. But with the one-size-fits-all approach that we currently have we may never know what actually works because we can't convince our Federal government to try it out.
There are other alternatives to Federal spending then private spending. How about city spending? How about state spending? Why does the Federal government have to be the one doing all the spending?
Because if we left it up to Tennessee, there would be an ORNL.
You are delusional.
--
BMO
Maybe they would close that lab; maybe they wouldn't. I don't really know. That would be up to the people in Tennessee.
If they choose to close it and want to use the money for anything else (schools, roads, parks, paying for other research centers besides ORNL) that would be their business. If people outside of Tennessee are concerned about that National Lab they can always pay for it themselves.
If we let the states do everything they want, we'd still have slavery.
But if you don't like what the state your living in is doing it is *much* easier to move to a different state it is easier to move to a different state then to move to a different country.
Because private industry has been cutting back on R&D for the past 30 years and shipping it off to China.
And don't even ask about basic science. There's no "profit motive" in it. Corporations don't do any worthwhile basic science. Not biology, not atmospheric, geological, astronomical, or even math. It's all applied science, with the goal of getting a profit next, or better "this quarter." Basic science is too long-range to be even considered.
All you libertarians are goddamn know-nothings and penny wise/pound foolish niggards that cheered when Sarah Palin decried fruit fly research (it's really about genetics, but whatever). I do/not/ want to live in your fantasy world.
--
BMO
There are other alternatives to Federal spending then private spending. How about city spending? How about state spending? Why does the Federal government have to be the one doing all the spending?
Are you saying that all of these things are impossible without the Federal Government paying for them?
Yes. You can pretend that capitalism can provide exactly what the government provides now, but capitalism cannot magically make non-profitable things profitable. If it isn't profitable, it won't happen.
There are other options you aren't considering: State Governments, County Governments, City Government.... I really like the idea of letting more local governments handle a lot of the things that the Federal Government is currently handling. It gives us a country more room to try out different things and see what works. It also allows the people in Texas and California to each do things their own ways and for everyone watching to see which way is really better.
Total debt is 10 trillion around, structural debt is around 1 trillion a year and he wants to cut very necessary services for a total of 11.35 billion dollars in savings.
His proposals total to $1 trillion a year; not $11.35 billion.
No more energy research, no more parks, no more public education, no more low income housing, no more roads & bridges. What a grand utopia he has planned for us.
Are you saying that all of these things are impossible without the Federal Government paying for them?
And besides, what do you think is going to happen to all of those things if we keep spending like we have a bottomless pit of money? And when will all of this money that we borrow get paid back? Who will pay it back? Unless we change course it won't be us, but the next generation that is paying for all of the roads, public education, and other stuff that we are using now! And what will happen to that generation? They'll be slaves paying off a debt and they won't even get the benefit of spending the money.
I checked, and I acknowledge you are technically correct.
However where I live they don't let asian immigrants (or humans of any race) in unless they're part of the judeo-christian tradition.
christian asian immigrant = OK, buddhist or free = No.
So... your average fillipino immigrant OK, your average Chinese immigrant not OK.
I listened to an Indian (curry eating Indian not native american Indian) whining about not allowing hindus in; not sure if thats official from HQ or the local good ole boys were giving him a hard time.
The usually close linkage between religion and race was the root of my confusion.
I spend a bit of time volunteering with a Boy Scout Troop that is sponsored by a church, and even though it is sponsored by a Church we have several boys that don't attend that church (or any church) including one boy from India. I'm not sure if he is Christian or Hindu (or Muslim, or Jewish, or anything else). As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter.
Hopefully this law didn't try to rewrite The 5th while giving the officer the ability to throw you into jail if you fail to comply.
5th Amendment to our *Federal* constitution. The 5th Amendment might prevent an FBI agent from going through your cell phone with a warrent. State and City Police might have completely different rules which is the whole reason there are three states which allow this sort of thing.
Don't like it? Help support someone in your local politics who promises to change it!
This depends on the length and randomness of the fancy character password. If you take a truly random ASCII-only password, you only need 7 characters to match the strength of that supposed 44-bit equivalent password.
While it's not viable to memorize a hundred logins with truly random passwords, that's the same issue you'd run into with correcthorsebatterystaple ("Now, Slashdot... Was that the horse and the battery, or the fruitfly and the baked beans?"), and is the one password managers should solve.
Even then, I'd think trying to keep horse with batteries or fruit flies with baked beans would be easier than trying to remember !a$%jb9 vs y48*y+=. Which would you rather remember?
So, do you say the same about people who ran the Underground Railroad, or do you rationalize away how that is somehow different
Please don't try to equate the anti-tax Teabaggers who decide to become secret tax cheats with people who were fighting slavery.
I realize that making such indecent and ignorant statements is part of being a teabagger, but please try to have a little more self-awareness than that.
Please..... Cheating on taxes has gone on long before the Tea Party movement, will continue on long after the Tea Party movement is forgotten, and probably happens among all political parties. Even if you hate the Tea Party it doesn't make any sense to drag them into this.
Do you have any idea how much higher that is than most states?
Yes, yes I do. If you'd clicked on the link I provided in my post you would also because it lists it all out for every single state. Apparently 34 states receive more than $0.94 for every dollar paid in taxes. In fact, 33 states receive a dollar or more for every dollar paid in taxes.
Once again, this was my source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
How do you think the Tea Party started? How many Tea Partiers do you think know what the TARP program or the debt ceiling really mean? All they know that they believe the blacks and mexicans are getting something that they're not getting. One of the most "conservative" states is Texas, that has a $27 billion budget deficit and takes more Federal taxpayer money than almost any other state, yet they're mad at "big government's wasteful ways". They're a welfare state that hates the Welfare State.
That seems a little bit like a strawman argument. I'm neither a Republican, nor a Tea Party member, but I do hope the tea party succeeds in getting the Federal budget balanced and that has *nothing* to do with "blacks and mexicans".
Also, you neglected to mention that Texas also *pays* more Federal Texas than just about any other state. I found some numbers from 2005 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html) and according to those numbers Texas recieved $0.94 for every dollar they paid in Taxes. Not exactly a welfare state, is it?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How in the world does a law forbidding teachers from being friends with students meet that criteria?
Missouri is not Congress so restrictions on Congress don't apply to them.
nothing wrong or hypocritical about playing by the rules as they exist, while simultaneously saying the rules are stupid and should be reformed.
Otherwise, all of us who bitch about the national debt would be hypocrites for not voluntarily paying extra on our tax bill every year, to help the obvious problem that the government spends more than it takes in.
Why the heck was this moded as troll? Doesn't seem troll to me.....
I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).
There were actually real turds in her diaper. That is why the TSA clerks wanted her to change it in the first place. I guess even though they don't mind feeling up everyone walking through the line they do mind poo.
Patents are only meaningful *because* of others. If I were the only person in the world, I wouldn't patent anything as no one else could beat me to the punch and require me to pay them fees, etc. The fact that another company exists that may patent the idea first and extract payment is quite a logical reason to consider a patent. This of Microsoft as an example of a hyperlitigious company used as an example. As a discussion as to why one might patent an idea such as this, bringing up being first to do so due to hyperlitigious company's is a good point of discussion.
You disagree I see, but bringing up Microsoft is apropos.
But why call Microsoft out specifically? Why not any other software company? Does Microsoft litigate more than other large software companies? How about other groups that spend as much on research as they do? Does Microsoft have a higher percentage of stupid lawsuits than say, Apple, IBM, or even Google? And if this story was about Microsoft instead of Google would you say that they have to do it to defend themselves from the stupid patents of other companies (for example, Google)?
And besides, the stupidest Microsoft patent lawsuit that I can think of is long filenames in FAT, but even that is a very different from doodles. Is there another stupid Microsoft patent lawsuit that I am forgetting?
To me, as someone who has never worked at Microsoft (despite being offered a job) and almost never uses Microsoft products, it sounds like Microsoft bashing.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad he is such a nutjob in other ways...
Yeah, he isn't at all like all of those non-nutty politicians that want us to invade half the world, have military outposts in the other half, pay for it by printing more money, and ignore the constition whenever it is convinent..... If you want more of the same vote for anyone except for Ron Paul.
If only his sane ideas weren't counterbalanced by his crazy ones...
What is crazy about thinking the Federal government should only do the things the constition allows it to do? And please don't say that society would collapse. We'd still have plenty of government at the state and more local levels.
Or you could support Gary Johnson, who is also opposed to the TSA, but is a REAL libertarian, unlike the poser Ron Paul who doesn't have the guts to stand up for gay marriage.
Why should the Federal Government be involved with marriage at all? I think Ron Paul's stance is that it shouldn't be a Federal issue. Don't you think it is a little hypocritical to say that you are against all instances of the Federal government stepping outside of the bounds established by the constition *except* in regards to gay marriage? To be honest I personally don't even think States should be in the business of endorcing marriages, but as there is nothing in the constition that prohibits it I guess it would be up to the individuals in each state to get marriage laws pulled.
You seem to have forgotten that most, if not all, of the states are also divided along the same lines. In each state you'll get the partisan arguments from each side over whether things are great or terrible. If one state comes up with a system that is really slick you can bet that no other states will give it a shot unless they modify so they can claim credit for it, and of course the plan will have to match the states ideological purity tests.
I think there are plenty of states right now that always swing left and plenty of other states that always swing right. Certainly enough that we could have several implementations of different conservative and liberal forms of government.
I see no problems with other states modifying something they think is working in another state before they give it a shot. Maybe their modification is best for their own state? If it works well maybe the original state can start using that idea in the future if it is applicable. If nothing else it will serve as evidence about what works and what doesn't work.
Should the people of California pay to subsidize the roads of many rural states? What about telephone subsidies for those states?
No, they shouldn't. Those states should pay for themselves just like California should pay for itself.
we're all talking in 19th century terms, right?
I was talking about present day terms. Even going back to the premise of the original post here it is I think ridicules to think there would still be slavery in the Southern states if not for the involvement of the Federal government. Slavery at the level that was happening in America in the 19th century ended all around the world a long time ago. There is no reason to think that the way we ended it here is the only possible way we could have ended slavery.
State governments can't pool the resources of the whole country as well as the federal government can..
Why can't they?
And you'll have a pretty hard time figuring out which way is really better as long as your country is divided between Republicans and Democrats because each side will say it's people are doing better than the other side.
Which is exactly why many of this things should not be happening at the Federal level. I think things mentioned in the constitution should be handled at the Federal level. I think for everything else states should be left to decide how they want to manage it. If one state comes up with a system that is really slick you can bet that many other states will give it a shot. But with the one-size-fits-all approach that we currently have we may never know what actually works because we can't convince our Federal government to try it out.
Because if we left it up to Tennessee, there would be an ORNL.
You are delusional.
-- BMO
Maybe they would close that lab; maybe they wouldn't. I don't really know. That would be up to the people in Tennessee.
If they choose to close it and want to use the money for anything else (schools, roads, parks, paying for other research centers besides ORNL) that would be their business. If people outside of Tennessee are concerned about that National Lab they can always pay for it themselves.
If we let the states do everything they want, we'd still have slavery.
But if you don't like what the state your living in is doing it is *much* easier to move to a different state it is easier to move to a different state then to move to a different country.
Because private industry has been cutting back on R&D for the past 30 years and shipping it off to China.
And don't even ask about basic science. There's no "profit motive" in it. Corporations don't do any worthwhile basic science. Not biology, not atmospheric, geological, astronomical, or even math. It's all applied science, with the goal of getting a profit next, or better "this quarter." Basic science is too long-range to be even considered.
All you libertarians are goddamn know-nothings and penny wise/pound foolish niggards that cheered when Sarah Palin decried fruit fly research (it's really about genetics, but whatever). I do /not/ want to live in your fantasy world.
-- BMO
There are other alternatives to Federal spending then private spending. How about city spending? How about state spending? Why does the Federal government have to be the one doing all the spending?
Are you saying that all of these things are impossible without the Federal Government paying for them?
Yes. You can pretend that capitalism can provide exactly what the government provides now, but capitalism cannot magically make non-profitable things profitable. If it isn't profitable, it won't happen.
There are other options you aren't considering: State Governments, County Governments, City Government.... I really like the idea of letting more local governments handle a lot of the things that the Federal Government is currently handling. It gives us a country more room to try out different things and see what works. It also allows the people in Texas and California to each do things their own ways and for everyone watching to see which way is really better.
Total debt is 10 trillion around, structural debt is around 1 trillion a year and he wants to cut very necessary services for a total of 11.35 billion dollars in savings.
His proposals total to $1 trillion a year; not $11.35 billion.
No more energy research, no more parks, no more public education, no more low income housing, no more roads & bridges. What a grand utopia he has planned for us.
Are you saying that all of these things are impossible without the Federal Government paying for them? And besides, what do you think is going to happen to all of those things if we keep spending like we have a bottomless pit of money? And when will all of this money that we borrow get paid back? Who will pay it back? Unless we change course it won't be us, but the next generation that is paying for all of the roads, public education, and other stuff that we are using now! And what will happen to that generation? They'll be slaves paying off a debt and they won't even get the benefit of spending the money.
I checked, and I acknowledge you are technically correct. However where I live they don't let asian immigrants (or humans of any race) in unless they're part of the judeo-christian tradition. christian asian immigrant = OK, buddhist or free = No. So... your average fillipino immigrant OK, your average Chinese immigrant not OK. I listened to an Indian (curry eating Indian not native american Indian) whining about not allowing hindus in; not sure if thats official from HQ or the local good ole boys were giving him a hard time. The usually close linkage between religion and race was the root of my confusion.
I spend a bit of time volunteering with a Boy Scout Troop that is sponsored by a church, and even though it is sponsored by a Church we have several boys that don't attend that church (or any church) including one boy from India. I'm not sure if he is Christian or Hindu (or Muslim, or Jewish, or anything else). As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter.
Hopefully this law didn't try to rewrite The 5th while giving the officer the ability to throw you into jail if you fail to comply.
5th Amendment to our *Federal* constitution. The 5th Amendment might prevent an FBI agent from going through your cell phone with a warrent. State and City Police might have completely different rules which is the whole reason there are three states which allow this sort of thing. Don't like it? Help support someone in your local politics who promises to change it!
This depends on the length and randomness of the fancy character password. If you take a truly random ASCII-only password, you only need 7 characters to match the strength of that supposed 44-bit equivalent password.
While it's not viable to memorize a hundred logins with truly random passwords, that's the same issue you'd run into with correcthorsebatterystaple ("Now, Slashdot... Was that the horse and the battery, or the fruitfly and the baked beans?"), and is the one password managers should solve.
Even then, I'd think trying to keep horse with batteries or fruit flies with baked beans would be easier than trying to remember !a$%jb9 vs y48*y+=. Which would you rather remember?
Please don't try to equate the anti-tax Teabaggers who decide to become secret tax cheats with people who were fighting slavery.
I realize that making such indecent and ignorant statements is part of being a teabagger, but please try to have a little more self-awareness than that.
Please..... Cheating on taxes has gone on long before the Tea Party movement, will continue on long after the Tea Party movement is forgotten, and probably happens among all political parties. Even if you hate the Tea Party it doesn't make any sense to drag them into this.
Do you have any idea how much higher that is than most states?
Yes, yes I do. If you'd clicked on the link I provided in my post you would also because it lists it all out for every single state. Apparently 34 states receive more than $0.94 for every dollar paid in taxes. In fact, 33 states receive a dollar or more for every dollar paid in taxes. Once again, this was my source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html Also, you said that Texas has "the worst education systems". According to a 2009 US News ranking of the Best High Schools by state Texas ranked 14th. I found that here: http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2009/12/09/americas-best-high-schools-state-by-state-statistics Is anything you say accurate?
Do you have any idea how much higher that is than most states?
Yes, yes I do. If you'd clicked on the link I provided in my post you would also because it lists it all out for every single state. Apparently 34 states receive more than $0.94 for every dollar paid in taxes. In fact, 33 states receive a dollar or more for every dollar paid in taxes. Once again, this was my source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
How do you think the Tea Party started? How many Tea Partiers do you think know what the TARP program or the debt ceiling really mean? All they know that they believe the blacks and mexicans are getting something that they're not getting. One of the most "conservative" states is Texas, that has a $27 billion budget deficit and takes more Federal taxpayer money than almost any other state, yet they're mad at "big government's wasteful ways". They're a welfare state that hates the Welfare State.
That seems a little bit like a strawman argument. I'm neither a Republican, nor a Tea Party member, but I do hope the tea party succeeds in getting the Federal budget balanced and that has *nothing* to do with "blacks and mexicans". Also, you neglected to mention that Texas also *pays* more Federal Texas than just about any other state. I found some numbers from 2005 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html) and according to those numbers Texas recieved $0.94 for every dollar they paid in Taxes. Not exactly a welfare state, is it?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How in the world does a law forbidding teachers from being friends with students meet that criteria?
Missouri is not Congress so restrictions on Congress don't apply to them.
nothing wrong or hypocritical about playing by the rules as they exist, while simultaneously saying the rules are stupid and should be reformed.
Otherwise, all of us who bitch about the national debt would be hypocrites for not voluntarily paying extra on our tax bill every year, to help the obvious problem that the government spends more than it takes in.
Why the heck was this moded as troll? Doesn't seem troll to me.....
I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).
There were actually real turds in her diaper. That is why the TSA clerks wanted her to change it in the first place. I guess even though they don't mind feeling up everyone walking through the line they do mind poo.
Patents are only meaningful *because* of others. If I were the only person in the world, I wouldn't patent anything as no one else could beat me to the punch and require me to pay them fees, etc. The fact that another company exists that may patent the idea first and extract payment is quite a logical reason to consider a patent. This of Microsoft as an example of a hyperlitigious company used as an example. As a discussion as to why one might patent an idea such as this, bringing up being first to do so due to hyperlitigious company's is a good point of discussion.
You disagree I see, but bringing up Microsoft is apropos.
But why call Microsoft out specifically? Why not any other software company? Does Microsoft litigate more than other large software companies? How about other groups that spend as much on research as they do? Does Microsoft have a higher percentage of stupid lawsuits than say, Apple, IBM, or even Google? And if this story was about Microsoft instead of Google would you say that they have to do it to defend themselves from the stupid patents of other companies (for example, Google)?
And besides, the stupidest Microsoft patent lawsuit that I can think of is long filenames in FAT, but even that is a very different from doodles. Is there another stupid Microsoft patent lawsuit that I am forgetting?
To me, as someone who has never worked at Microsoft (despite being offered a job) and almost never uses Microsoft products, it sounds like Microsoft bashing.