Comment Personally? (Score 4, Insightful) 702
I like the government model better, since there isn't really much competition and there probably won't be, given the cost of infrastructure.
Clever, but I disagree about the applicability of your metaphor. Yes, he had a bunch of stuff about about state secrets and then dismissed two important points:
1) what do we do about all the people at "Gitmo" if we shut it down? What proof do you have that waterboarding and other questionable activities are being continued there?
2) aren't we winding down combat operations in Iraq? Do you read the news? Also, starting a war is a lot different than continuing one. What do you suggest we do in Afghanistan if not try to prevent the Taliban from taking over again?
Starting a fraudulent war isn't the same as continuing a reasonable one. If you forgot, it was Osama Bin Laden that attacked the US, and his allies are the ones we're fighting in Afghanistan.
Obama asked for the sack of shit. I believe he campaigned on his ability to handle sacks of shit better than the other guy.
Prove that he can't?
I'd hate to see what you think would qualify as worse!
I'd hate to see what you think qualifies as worse than before. Really.
Bush started two wars, one of which was for fraudulent reasons (Iraq), and the other was neglected so long that it is now "unwinnable." Bush and Clinton are as responsible as anyone for setting the stage for the current economic crisis that Obama is trying desperately to resolve. Bush CREATED Gitmo.
There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone, but yes, I think Bush has been responsible for far more death and catastrophe than Obama.
Obama was handed a sack of shit by the previous administration, and whatever happens the next 2-6 years, I doubt he'll add to it as much as Bush, Cheney, and Co. did during their tenure in office.
I sincerely hope that we can both minimize civilian (and "civilian") losses, and still win; I am unconvinced that we can.
If we don't minimize civilian losses, we lose.
Why repeat what I've already said?
Because it was preposterous.
Oh and you're wrong about the women couldn't own property bit.
I said married women.
And in the more-progressive northern states not only did women own property, they were allowed to vote in elections.
As far as I know, Wyoming was the first state to grant women the right to vote, and that was in 1869. I think that in the 1820s, many states still only allowed property owners to vote.
An american individual in the 1820s had a LOT more freedom than we have today, if only because there was no income tax to take-away your earnings.
I don't view income taxes as a huge impediment to my freedom. Despite what you claim, in the 1820s, freedom of speech and other rights were regularly denied to huge parts of the population. Your claim is ridiculous.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of the things you claim restrict freedom (like taxes or government mandates) are actually required to protect the rights of others, or to provide them the same opportunities? Think about it.
You mean like the USA circa 1820s. We seemed to do okay. The government was limited to only those powers granted by the Constitution, and men were free to pursue happiness in whatever way they desired. There was the problem of slavery and sexism, but we were still making progress.
"Buy healthcare or be fined ~$1000."
It took about 200 years but the leaders have successfully restored the monarchy/nobility. True it's an elected monarchy/nobility, but still the same old Medieval-style power structure.
Married women couldn't own property. Slavery was legal. Health care was practically nonexistent. Your idea of tyranny is different than mine!
Is it too much to ask that the editors at Slashdot at least GLANCE at the linked articles?
If Congresscritters can't be expected to read bills before they vote on them why would you expect editors at Slashdot to view articles before they make the front page?
The difference is that Congresscritters have lackeys and lobbyists to tell them what to think. Slashdot editors ARE the lackeys.
You do have to wonder if the widening gap between rural and city male voting behavior might actually be attributable to exposure to these sorts of chemicals, in all seriousness.
If this was the case, you'd think that the 'feminization' of men would show up in other ways too. Take a look at the differences in the rates of violent crime in rural areas and the inner city. For the most part, relatively relatively unpolluted, rural areas are far safer.
There are plenty of vastly more important social factors going on, in my opinion.
It is quite possible things might actually work better under real Libertarianism where Wall Street bankers get absolutely no assistance from the Fed, Treasury, Congress or the President.
What, exactly, do you think would happen if the government seriously deregulated and we had "real Libertarianism?" Do you think the wealthy would suddenly have LESS power? Pretty damn unlikely. The knowledge and power imbalance between major corporations and the average consumer is too great, and they have very little incentive to play nice. The answer is to take back government and make it work, not throw up our hands and give up.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is critical.
And you just keep trying them on until you find a style that fits, right?
A great majority of Americans have thrown science and logic out the window, and choose instead to vote with their passions and emotions.
Can you cite a time when the majority of Americans used science and logic to decide how to vote? I think you're overestimating the decision-making powers of generations past.
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin
