You may wish to familiarize yourself with Rolex (the corporation, you can't afford the watch) before stating such silly things. They are operated by a foundation which has charitable obligations but they're very much for profit and very much tax payers.
If it is only.1% then that's not enough to carry the vote. I don't know where you come from but in my country everyone is allowed to vote except under a few circumstances.
You'd can insure most anything. I'm not a fan of taking that right away from you.
The other is reality, we need welfare. Otherwise we'll have peasants revolting. It's cheaper and a more stable society with welfare. Ideological purity is hampered by reality when common sense is used.
It's true. People are very lazy. They're physically lazy and intellectually lazy. I don't think we're that way by default, I think we're that way when our needs and wants have been mostly met. There are, obviously, exceptions...
Take, for example, a post I had above. It was modded "troll." They modded it troll when, frankly, it is hardly trolling. It was an in-kind response to your post. You weren't offended, you weren't being led on to get the most response for the smallest amount of effort, nor was it particularly inflammatory or the likes. They're just intellectually lazy and rather than opining, expressing their views (which I'm quite encouraging of and don't, at all, expect people to agree with mine) so they modded it troll.
I think your description of them as Slashdot Libertarians (I like that, a lot, by the way) is pretty spot on. They are shameful. I don't mind but, frankly, that's the best way I can describe them. The damage they've done to my party's name is unrepairable at this point and they don't even know what the platform is about. They latched on to one or two things, decided to take them to extremes, and have been very vocal with their absurd views. I encourage people to do this but not at the expense of sacrificing a platform because no, they don't even come close to representing the platform. Form your own party if you're going to be like that.
And yes, the reality IS that they came along in 2007-2008 and were so embarrassed by Bush that they dropped the Republican letter and co-opted the Libertarian name while actually knowing nothing about the party, the planks, or (as near as I can tell) having been invited to speak for the party. The party size trebled over just a couple of years. I've been a dues paying member since the early 80s though I'm registered as an Independent (which is actually the Independent/Green party here in Maine, I'm not a greenie so don't really like it but that's how it is) and I know a number of us aren't at all impressed with how this happened and the results. However, you can't just kick them out and they brought in more members than already existed in the party... So, yeah, I don't usually bother describing myself as a Libertarian any more. It used to be that it was easier, simpler, and closest to my actual ideology. Now it is not so simple to describe.
Ah, thanks. Maybe I should watch the movie? I am sure it is online somewhere. Netflix or Hulu most likely have it. I'd probably avoid the whole blowing it up bit though, I'm more of a minimal amount of damage person. They may have food stores or other wealth in there that can be taken. I'm not sure which is worse, that we're having this conversation or that I've given it this much thought. I'm not even a doomsday prepper! I don't even think I'll ever be attacked by zombies.
And, now I feel dirty. I added "prepper" to Firefox's dictionary so that it wouldn't flag it as a spelling error.
I have learned that anything can be considered a civil right so long as you get a loud enough vocal minority to keep up the pressure. I'd go into it but, well, it would just make me look like an ass because nobody would bother to read the entirety of what I have to say and it's a bit more complex than one can comfortably fit on a bumper sticker.
I'd not know. I've, strangely, never seen it. I'm guessing that you're talking about the movie? I don't know if there was a book either. *shrugs*
"I'm just going to go stay in my bunker and wait you out!" "Okay, I'm just going to go plug your air supply and wait outside the door with a sandwich."
What was strange is them stating that they didn't like people pushing people out due to ideological purity tests or whatnot. Then they attempt to try to tell me what I believe and what my platform is when, frankly, I can pretty much guarantee I understand the definition and platform far better than they do as I've made quite an effort to get an education in that area. As I was a Cold War child I found politics fascinating and have spent many years learning (both from reading and in a classic academia setting) and have used that knowledge to reach my personal opinions on how I feel and have learned the appropriate verbiage. It isn't my fault, however, that folks don't understand the vocabulary.
I think people attach themselves to a political platform based on one or two planks. They simply don't know the depth, don't bother to learn about them, and ascribe themselves based on those planks and use that as justification to assume that the remainder of the party members are ideologically the same or similar. I am not sure why they do this as I can probably provide enough historical evidence to prove that any single platform has its flaws and that blind zealotry is never a good thing. You need to be an individual, to examine and take what you reason to be correct, and apply that to your own views and then vote accordingly.
I'm not entirely lock-step with the platform and my reasons are that the costs would be less for society to purchase these services and goods with the wholesale pricing afforded due to the massive amount of capital that the government has that we, as individuals and business owners/workers, don't have and thus can't provide at nearly the same price level. It would require forced participation, via taxation. Some ideals simply aren't attainable when confronted with the real world.
I'm registered as an Independent simply because I don't agree with the entirety of the Libertarian platform either. I am, well, hard to describe in a few blurbs of text and anything that truly describes me would be too long for you to bother to read. You'd just cut/paste something you found uncomfortable and argue with it. I've done this before and haven't any reason to think this time would be different.
It's funny that you mention purging due to not being ideologically identical and then, well, post that.
But, for the sake of conversation and yet brevity, I'm a left leaning libertarian with a great deal of influence from the classic libertarians. It's complicated but logical. That is why I like it. I support liberty for the individual but I understand what freedom is. People don't generally even know what freedom means. I'll give you an example:
I am perfectly free to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so.
As for being able to opt-out of single payer health care, you're at liberty to buy your own insurance and at liberty to not partake at all. However, you're still going to be taxed based on your earnings. Would it mean tax raises? Probably not if I were Ruler of the Universe, we pay more than enough taxes already. Our problem isn't that we don't pay enough in taxes, our problem is that we spend that money poorly. Tax code problems are, of course, a different subject.
Oh I do. I don't agree with the entirety of the Libertarian platform (note that I'm for things like public funding of health care as an example) but it is closest to my ideology and saves some time when trying to explain it to folks. I'm actually registered as an Independent.
To be fair, the poster is probably from an area of the globe that bombs itself into rubble every few generations and then whines to America to come fix it up for them. They don't have a whole lot of brain power there. My guess would be inbreeding.
Just yesterday a guy was complaining about his homeland, Canada, in the comments. I remarked on it as it was unusual to see. Some moron replied that that's what they always see, which is ignoring the vast amount of self-examination done by Americans on this board.
They ALL need air at some point. LOL It's the fatal flaw in all of the designs I've seen so far. We've got cameras that can see heat differences, we'll find their air vent. The gas masks all take cartridges and those run out fairly quickly actually. So... Yeah...
It has reached the point where I don't usually bother identifying myself as a libertarian. People have come to believe that that means I'm against public roads, housing, care, government, regulations, EPA, etc... No, hell - I actually support single payer health care! I am in favor of a small but POWERFUL government that addresses the needs of a social net, reasonable regulation, maintaining the safety of our borders, and provisioning a safe society. I am against unreasonable regulations and restrictions of freedoms. I'm in favor of increasing state's rights to the point where a state can actually consist of like-minded individuals. We, in modernity, have the freedom of movement with ease and little expense. Take advantage of these liberties and create social settings that are comfortable for people with a strong central government that ensures the safety of the states.
What happened, circa 2007 to 2008, is that a lot of Right Wing Republicans decided they could change their affiliation to Libertarian and influence the party. We are NOT in favor of privately funded roads. We're in favor of making the idea of privately funded roads exist however. It's not that fucking hard to figure out. The influence and influx of these shit heads has really pissed me off and now I'm thinking about it. I'm going to go get high.
You don't know much about your "opposition" do you? I, for instance, am VERY strongly in favor of gun rights, I do believe that we should be ready to take over the government if need be, and I oppose this decision strongly. Maybe you should think once in a while and stop listening to what the talking heads on the television tell you to believe?
To be fair, in my observation, very few on the right believe such either. What disturbs me most is that these polarized views are from people who are convinced they know what their "opponents" think but don't actually think about what their own side's messages/actions are. I'm quite firmly in the middle with a slight left and libertarian (small L) political view. I truly find it disturbing.
No, I don't think you understand the definition of that word. It's fashionable to hate the police, I understand that and there's quite a bit of justification for that, but they still have rights. We can't trample on the rights of those we don't like because we don't like them. We need a reason to do that. They're innocent until proven guilty too. It sucks but that's freedom for you. We all have it or none of us have it.
You, my good sir, are being a reactionary. Knee-jerk responses to emotional stimulation is no way to create reasonable law.
It seems logical to me that there should be an disabling switch but that footage from immediately before, and after, should be considered evidence as well. As it already records audio they should have a required vocal documentation method for disabling the device. Such as, "This is officer Tanner badge number 18117 and the current time is 1754. I am intentionally disabling the recording (I'm unsure if we need a reason or not but I'd err on the side of caution and suggest that we do)."
Hmm... Maybe an estimated duration could be recorded too?
Any other thoughts? (I don't think I saw you mention it actually, I may have missed it. It seemed strange that nobody was bringing it up but then, well, I figured we all love to hate the police so nobody thought of it.)
I also figure some folks will specifically request them in the future just for the reason of them not being assigned to a specific PC within a network. I haven't seen a designated IPv4 end date in the specs or whatnot. As DHCP doesn't forward the local machine's private address there's some measure of difficulty in ascertaining the actual PC the requests originated from and people may see that as a value added service. As you mentioned, there's bound to be legacy devices for ages. I'd actually guess that you're estimate of 20-30 years is probably pretty accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
You may wish to familiarize yourself with Rolex (the corporation, you can't afford the watch) before stating such silly things. They are operated by a foundation which has charitable obligations but they're very much for profit and very much tax payers.
If it is only .1% then that's not enough to carry the vote. I don't know where you come from but in my country everyone is allowed to vote except under a few circumstances.
You'd can insure most anything. I'm not a fan of taking that right away from you.
The other is reality, we need welfare. Otherwise we'll have peasants revolting. It's cheaper and a more stable society with welfare. Ideological purity is hampered by reality when common sense is used.
Meh... It happens. It seems to happen a lot to me but, then again, I enjoy a good online conversation. I prefer them over the real things actually.
It's true. People are very lazy. They're physically lazy and intellectually lazy. I don't think we're that way by default, I think we're that way when our needs and wants have been mostly met. There are, obviously, exceptions...
Take, for example, a post I had above. It was modded "troll." They modded it troll when, frankly, it is hardly trolling. It was an in-kind response to your post. You weren't offended, you weren't being led on to get the most response for the smallest amount of effort, nor was it particularly inflammatory or the likes. They're just intellectually lazy and rather than opining, expressing their views (which I'm quite encouraging of and don't, at all, expect people to agree with mine) so they modded it troll.
I think your description of them as Slashdot Libertarians (I like that, a lot, by the way) is pretty spot on. They are shameful. I don't mind but, frankly, that's the best way I can describe them. The damage they've done to my party's name is unrepairable at this point and they don't even know what the platform is about. They latched on to one or two things, decided to take them to extremes, and have been very vocal with their absurd views. I encourage people to do this but not at the expense of sacrificing a platform because no, they don't even come close to representing the platform. Form your own party if you're going to be like that.
And yes, the reality IS that they came along in 2007-2008 and were so embarrassed by Bush that they dropped the Republican letter and co-opted the Libertarian name while actually knowing nothing about the party, the planks, or (as near as I can tell) having been invited to speak for the party. The party size trebled over just a couple of years. I've been a dues paying member since the early 80s though I'm registered as an Independent (which is actually the Independent/Green party here in Maine, I'm not a greenie so don't really like it but that's how it is) and I know a number of us aren't at all impressed with how this happened and the results. However, you can't just kick them out and they brought in more members than already existed in the party... So, yeah, I don't usually bother describing myself as a Libertarian any more. It used to be that it was easier, simpler, and closest to my actual ideology. Now it is not so simple to describe.
Ah, thanks. Maybe I should watch the movie? I am sure it is online somewhere. Netflix or Hulu most likely have it. I'd probably avoid the whole blowing it up bit though, I'm more of a minimal amount of damage person. They may have food stores or other wealth in there that can be taken. I'm not sure which is worse, that we're having this conversation or that I've given it this much thought. I'm not even a doomsday prepper! I don't even think I'll ever be attacked by zombies.
And, now I feel dirty. I added "prepper" to Firefox's dictionary so that it wouldn't flag it as a spelling error.
I have learned that anything can be considered a civil right so long as you get a loud enough vocal minority to keep up the pressure. I'd go into it but, well, it would just make me look like an ass because nobody would bother to read the entirety of what I have to say and it's a bit more complex than one can comfortably fit on a bumper sticker.
I'd not know. I've, strangely, never seen it. I'm guessing that you're talking about the movie? I don't know if there was a book either. *shrugs*
"I'm just going to go stay in my bunker and wait you out!"
"Okay, I'm just going to go plug your air supply and wait outside the door with a sandwich."
What was strange is them stating that they didn't like people pushing people out due to ideological purity tests or whatnot. Then they attempt to try to tell me what I believe and what my platform is when, frankly, I can pretty much guarantee I understand the definition and platform far better than they do as I've made quite an effort to get an education in that area. As I was a Cold War child I found politics fascinating and have spent many years learning (both from reading and in a classic academia setting) and have used that knowledge to reach my personal opinions on how I feel and have learned the appropriate verbiage. It isn't my fault, however, that folks don't understand the vocabulary.
I think people attach themselves to a political platform based on one or two planks. They simply don't know the depth, don't bother to learn about them, and ascribe themselves based on those planks and use that as justification to assume that the remainder of the party members are ideologically the same or similar. I am not sure why they do this as I can probably provide enough historical evidence to prove that any single platform has its flaws and that blind zealotry is never a good thing. You need to be an individual, to examine and take what you reason to be correct, and apply that to your own views and then vote accordingly.
I should make that clearer:
By not partaking at all, I mean not taking advantage of the health services. Such a choice would be stupid but you'd be free to do it.
I'm not entirely lock-step with the platform and my reasons are that the costs would be less for society to purchase these services and goods with the wholesale pricing afforded due to the massive amount of capital that the government has that we, as individuals and business owners/workers, don't have and thus can't provide at nearly the same price level. It would require forced participation, via taxation. Some ideals simply aren't attainable when confronted with the real world.
I'm registered as an Independent simply because I don't agree with the entirety of the Libertarian platform either. I am, well, hard to describe in a few blurbs of text and anything that truly describes me would be too long for you to bother to read. You'd just cut/paste something you found uncomfortable and argue with it. I've done this before and haven't any reason to think this time would be different.
It's funny that you mention purging due to not being ideologically identical and then, well, post that.
But, for the sake of conversation and yet brevity, I'm a left leaning libertarian with a great deal of influence from the classic libertarians. It's complicated but logical. That is why I like it. I support liberty for the individual but I understand what freedom is. People don't generally even know what freedom means. I'll give you an example:
I am perfectly free to kill you.
I am not at liberty to do so.
As for being able to opt-out of single payer health care, you're at liberty to buy your own insurance and at liberty to not partake at all. However, you're still going to be taxed based on your earnings. Would it mean tax raises? Probably not if I were Ruler of the Universe, we pay more than enough taxes already. Our problem isn't that we don't pay enough in taxes, our problem is that we spend that money poorly. Tax code problems are, of course, a different subject.
Oh I do. I don't agree with the entirety of the Libertarian platform (note that I'm for things like public funding of health care as an example) but it is closest to my ideology and saves some time when trying to explain it to folks. I'm actually registered as an Independent.
There are people who blindly follow their GPS into a lake.
To be fair, the poster is probably from an area of the globe that bombs itself into rubble every few generations and then whines to America to come fix it up for them. They don't have a whole lot of brain power there. My guess would be inbreeding.
Just yesterday a guy was complaining about his homeland, Canada, in the comments. I remarked on it as it was unusual to see. Some moron replied that that's what they always see, which is ignoring the vast amount of self-examination done by Americans on this board.
They ALL need air at some point. LOL It's the fatal flaw in all of the designs I've seen so far. We've got cameras that can see heat differences, we'll find their air vent. The gas masks all take cartridges and those run out fairly quickly actually. So... Yeah...
It has reached the point where I don't usually bother identifying myself as a libertarian. People have come to believe that that means I'm against public roads, housing, care, government, regulations, EPA, etc... No, hell - I actually support single payer health care! I am in favor of a small but POWERFUL government that addresses the needs of a social net, reasonable regulation, maintaining the safety of our borders, and provisioning a safe society. I am against unreasonable regulations and restrictions of freedoms. I'm in favor of increasing state's rights to the point where a state can actually consist of like-minded individuals. We, in modernity, have the freedom of movement with ease and little expense. Take advantage of these liberties and create social settings that are comfortable for people with a strong central government that ensures the safety of the states.
What happened, circa 2007 to 2008, is that a lot of Right Wing Republicans decided they could change their affiliation to Libertarian and influence the party. We are NOT in favor of privately funded roads. We're in favor of making the idea of privately funded roads exist however. It's not that fucking hard to figure out. The influence and influx of these shit heads has really pissed me off and now I'm thinking about it. I'm going to go get high.
You don't know much about your "opposition" do you? I, for instance, am VERY strongly in favor of gun rights, I do believe that we should be ready to take over the government if need be, and I oppose this decision strongly. Maybe you should think once in a while and stop listening to what the talking heads on the television tell you to believe?
We're just gonna gas your air supply vent and blow the doors off after a few days.
To be fair, in my observation, very few on the right believe such either. What disturbs me most is that these polarized views are from people who are convinced they know what their "opponents" think but don't actually think about what their own side's messages/actions are. I'm quite firmly in the middle with a slight left and libertarian (small L) political view. I truly find it disturbing.
For once?
No, I don't think you understand the definition of that word. It's fashionable to hate the police, I understand that and there's quite a bit of justification for that, but they still have rights. We can't trample on the rights of those we don't like because we don't like them. We need a reason to do that. They're innocent until proven guilty too. It sucks but that's freedom for you. We all have it or none of us have it.
You, my good sir, are being a reactionary. Knee-jerk responses to emotional stimulation is no way to create reasonable law.
It seems logical to me that there should be an disabling switch but that footage from immediately before, and after, should be considered evidence as well. As it already records audio they should have a required vocal documentation method for disabling the device. Such as, "This is officer Tanner badge number 18117 and the current time is 1754. I am intentionally disabling the recording (I'm unsure if we need a reason or not but I'd err on the side of caution and suggest that we do)."
Hmm... Maybe an estimated duration could be recorded too?
Any other thoughts? (I don't think I saw you mention it actually, I may have missed it. It seemed strange that nobody was bringing it up but then, well, I figured we all love to hate the police so nobody thought of it.)
I also figure some folks will specifically request them in the future just for the reason of them not being assigned to a specific PC within a network. I haven't seen a designated IPv4 end date in the specs or whatnot. As DHCP doesn't forward the local machine's private address there's some measure of difficulty in ascertaining the actual PC the requests originated from and people may see that as a value added service. As you mentioned, there's bound to be legacy devices for ages. I'd actually guess that you're estimate of 20-30 years is probably pretty accurate.
Yes.