<Beavis and Butthead laugh>You said "cock-pit"</Beavis and Butthead laugh>
Bill Dog: why do you object to being a co-pilot?
I'm afraid of heights?
From my afternoon drive home today:
- Not clever or funny:
Dog is my co-pilot
- Clever and funny:
JESUS IS COMING!
p.s. About another bumper sticker I saw recently, being something like:
Don't tailgate me or I'll flick a booger on your windshield
(Just a meta-comment, that I really had nothing to add so didn't respond, but I did read and process what you wrote, and didn't ask for elaboration and then just ignore it.
And surprising to hear you sound so strongly libertarian in your other reply (under your Net Neutrality JE)!)
I disagree -- the fault is both with the media dominance and liberal hive mind mentality.
But the Left is losing on the Global Warming angle, even with the two aces in their pocket you mentioned. I think the two (I forgot about one before) issues of our time that are cementing the Left's power from here on out in this country, that they couldn't achieve it on with other issues, is the gay issue and the drugs issue.
Because the Left is tolerant of particularly those two, the level of viciousness of their intolerance of countless other things is overlooked, and the lack of an economic recovery (and no change in that in sight) is lowered in importance.
Gays and drugs are how this new era of America was ushered in. We don't care about nothin' else in the U.S.; the millions of our fellow citizens who have been long-term unemployed or grossly underemployed, world-destabilizing beligerent Iran getting a nuclear weapon, whatevs. For the younger generation, sure they might say they care, and actually care a little, about income inequality, the environment, racism, blah blah blah, but what's really locked them in is the strong contrast in Left/Right stances on gays and drugs.
Especially from now on, no Republican who could win the primary can win the general election.
It's interesting, but it's really Social Conservatives fault. The gay issue was the pivotal turning point, that's changed the course of America. A generation has been told that Conservatives hate certain peoples, but some of those people are one's friends, so even if they have some conception that the Left is making it very hard for them financially, they know for social reasons they could never vote anything but D, and besides, if the D's are on their side on the social issues, the D's economic plans are probably overall for the greater good anyways. They're given the benefit of the doubt.
That's why, among other reasons, the U.S. is heading to and will become a second world country. Socialism is seen as plausible, and should be tried anyways because it's more fair. Besides, economic growth really only helps just the rich.
I'd be interested in your elaboration on this. (I'm of course for being good stewards of what we were given dominion over. Within reason. And with the understanding that, among all the Creation, there is by design a two-class system.)
I don't know what was going on there, but I don't think it's related. Maybe some part of your web app was using an unusual port or protocol, and TWC was in the process of tightening down their standard configuration, for security and/or having it simpler for lower-paid staff. Insisting it's a bug in the other guy's stuff, before being forced to really look into it, is of course a common (attempt at cost savings) behavior that happens across many sectors, and is not indicative of a more sinister scheme.
So, what is the intent of a setting that blocks access to an ISP user's commonly used websites?
To lose their customers to their competitors, I guess. I've had TWC for (broadband) Internet continuously since about 1995, and the only blockage I've seen was in the MS monthly patches emails.
Common carrier laws don't determine either how much you'll charge nor how much you'll make,
My error in conflating that and utilities, so apologies. But my impression is that's what's been behind Net Neutrality, to effectively turn the pipes to the Internet into a regulated utility. And to make broadband a basic human right.
they merely dictate that you can't discriminate in what you carry.
But a la what I posited to Qzukk, how is that "merely" done. How can govt. second-guess a business's motives when a business charges more for carrying something that costs them more to carry. Without degrading into govt. effectively dictating their pricing structure.
As in, you can't choose customer A over customer B just for the hell of it.
I wish things like that and for example hiring discrimination were determinable. But they aren't except in the exceptional cases when the perpetrator is unusually lazy about it and lets it be obvious.
Now, personally, I'm against common carrier laws because I'm against freedom of communication
They don't go far enough, regulation-wise, for you?
>>> Left wing libertarians do exist, you know.
>> But being in support of common carrier laws, [...]
> In what way is insuring a fair and free market collectivism?
Subjecting businesses to common carrier laws is giving the collective priority over the owning individuals. The government decides how much you'll charge and how much you'll make; hardly a free market.
I think Leftism and libertarianism in combination is like agnosticism (about the existence of God): Possible in theory, but given human nature, not really even possible in reality.
Obama and his whole administration are a bunch of ideologues.
I was going to take umbrage at your implied disparaging of ideologues, which I've considered myself to be among, but now I see the definition is more than just being a zealot for an ideology. This one fits the best with your comment:
"1 : an impractical idealist : theorist"
"Green on the outside, Red on the inside."
I see belief in Global Warming going the way of belief that there's no Liberal bias in the media.
"Authorities are still trying to determine the suspects' motives, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said Monday."
But the political ends *is* the installment of fairnesses. (There's no morally higher pursuit.) And we're gonna hafta disagree on being able to equalize everything in life as sounding plausible.
Thank you for explaining that; I'd missed that nuance to it.
Maybe this points to one of the inherent problematicnesses [new word there] of regulating business. That is, how does one decide (and who does the deciding) at what point is charging more for a costlier service being done for anti-competitive reasons?