Preferably in the uncut edition published at Mrs Heinlein's behest after RAH's death. After all, it was deliberately written as an attempt to offend as many moral beliefs as possible - and, I think, succeeds brilliantly in that. It's also clever, entertaining, thought-provoking, and very funny indeed (in parts). Recommended for anyone too young to have caught it yet.
It's also quite something to reflect that Hitler did a far better job fixing his country's economy between 1933 and 1939 than Roosevelt did. Things are seldom what they seem.
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
Call me when anyone cares what the Guardian or the NYT does.
"Hitler would have pushed the button just before he pulled the trigger".
As would Obama, Dubya, Clinton, GHW, all the way back to Kennedy. (Maybe Eisenhower wouldn't have). If his plans for global conquest had failed utterly, the USA was a shambles from coast to coast, and Russian soldiers were approaching a couple of blocks away intending to give him what Qadafi got before he died.
"That's the best way to get your ass handed to you on a plate in 20 years time".
But surely that makes no sense? If the world worked that way, the USA would already have taken advantage of its own nuclear arsenal to exploit and rape all sorts of smaller weaker countries.
"The GOP would be livid..."
And that would be worse than a nuclear holocaust.
I don't trust myself to comment...
Isn't it simply a question of what your house is made of? I have seen houses in the USA that seem to be built almost wholly from wood; no problem there. My house has external brick walls, but the internal walls are breezeblock, presumably with some steel reinforcement. Result: wireless works OK vertically (through the light wooden ceilings and floors) but often not at all horizontally or diagonally. I'm sitting here participating in this thread with wireless, but I have purchased a good (Diavolo) powerline networking system so I can always plug in wired Ethernet through the nearest mains socket.
"Then she doesn't need a PC, she needs an iPad or a Surface RT".
Good luck buying one of those with a 24-inch screen, so she can see her pictures in full glorious detail. And read her messages in 24-point, because her eyes aren't so good any more.
But at least it'll fit in her purse. (And probably stay there, when she forgets about it).
Oh by the way, Grandma... you can buy this PC with Linux pre-installed for less than the other one without Windows. That's because Linux needs less powerful hardware to run properly. Oh, and you'll find it just as easy (if that's the word) to use as Windows.
Freedom! Isn't it good?
Other questions that would be moderated "Troll" by Slashdotters:
"Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?"
"What is truth?"
"And what of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many—is that just or not?"
"So to answer your question, US culture is, simply put, not communist dictatorship culture, it's something that's objectively better for most people..."
That sounds rather like a description of the American political system, not culture. What do you think is the difference?
"Where are you from again? I'm sure I can point out how inbred you are".
What difference does it make where I am from? (Seriously). And how would it advance our discourse if you were to point out how "inbred" I am? That sounds like a straightforward ad hominem, which should be ignored.
As it happens, my simple question was exactly what it looks like: a simple question. Someone mentioned US culture, and I inquired what that is. I honestly would like to know. Some replies on this thread have suggested answers, but I don't think any so far are framed in a very serious way.
Another way of looking at my simple question is as something like a Rorschach test. It's quite revealing, and even somewhat amusing, to see the responses it brings forth.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".