Understood. No human empathy for wrong gender, wrong race. Thanks for making it so clear what kind of person you are.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
No one should vote for me for President either.
Bush was governor of one of the the largest states. Governors balance budgets and oversee the government of their states. But I'm not for Bush. We've had too many Bushs and Clintons already. Scott Walker is clearly better than Bush. Even Chris Christie is better.
Rand Paul is leading on getting rid of mandatory prison sentences. He crafted a balanced budget plan a couple years ago. He's a clear leader. But he has a similar accomplishment issue to Hillary.
Unlike Rand Paul, Hillary has had many many years to accomplish something important in several different roles.
Certain people get a pass. That's the real explanation. That's why it doesn't matter in Hillary's case.
When all your eggs are in one basket, you protect the basket, regardless of how many monsters are hiding there behind the eggs.
Government control of health care is the first thing that comes to mind.
It's because neither one of them has much of a resume. What else is there to say about Hillary?
What else was there to say about Obama? He was running as the first black President. No one was going to say he isn't black.
Maybe we can choose a President based on something more substantial this time. If we do it will be really hard for Hillary to win because she has no prominent achievements.
Not really much of a list. It's not exactly zero accomplishments, but there's nothing prominent. What's the headliner? Funds for the WTC site?
We will be hearing she has no meaningful accomplishments a lot. This is a poor response.
Number of dead Ambassadors: 1 -- Number of accomplishments in public life: 0
...but I hate the dishonesty of the jackoffs on the Right even more
Why should non-haters vote for her?
Some people can say they have accomplishments to balance out thier mistakes. What are Hillary's accomplishments?
How about the fact that she was in charge when a U.S. Ambassador was killed for the fist time in 30 years?
How about the fact that she has zero accomplishments as Secretary of State? (Feel free to refute this by listing her accomplishments.)
How about the fact that she has zero important accomplishments as Senator?
How about the fact that she was put in charge of health care as First Lady and accomplished nothing?
If you're weighing her pros and cons, what are the pros?
Which Republican candidate(s) do you disagree with? On what issue? Why? What is the specific bad thing that will happen if that candidate gets elected instead of Hillary?
Put some thought into it if you haven't already. Let's at least try to choose a President based on thought and reasoning this time.
I'm against some of the Republican candidates. Jeb Bush especially, because we have had enough Bushes and Clintons and there are at least 3 or 4 better choices.
I don't see anyone arguing for that. I generally see arguments for whose choices should be imposed on everyone, not arguments against imposing one person's choices on others.
As for a well balanced social contract, generally I see people who demand things be balanced in their favor -- even if (or especially if) they contribute little or nothing to society.
Maybe you are correct. But I don't prefer to argue such a point based on a definition understood by only 1 in 1000 people, or by referring to academic topics, or by using quotations (in general).
Thanks for the info though. Next time the "social contract" is brought up, I will try to determine whether is is meant in this context, or whether the meaning is the usual "you owe us your money and your obedience
Actually, the apartheid government of South Africa should have thought of this argument. "If you don't accept the social contract we are imposing on you, you can accept exile somewhere and never see your home and family again. If you stay, that means you agree the contract is fair and you'll abide by the contract terms. The contract terms are whatever we say they are. We can change them at any time."
A "social contract" sure is a useful way to justify using force against people.
"She said NO over and over and over, but she never fought back physically and she never ran away into the wilderness, leaving everything she knew behind. Therefore it wasn't rape."
Why are prohibitionists so quick to resort to insults?
Because "let's hurt these people who are not like us" is a large part of the motivation for the laws. Sometimes it's not the motivation, but "it will only hurt these people who are not like us, and who cares about them?"