Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So much for the "Information Age" (Score 2) 327

by NeutronCowboy (#47509201) Attached to: MIT's Ted Postol Presents More Evidence On Iron Dome Failures

Yes, I'm sure you read every source that anyone ever throws at you, for anything. What happens in the real world is that we make assessments on the probability of a source providing actual insight. is a site that is identical in insight and accuracy as Stormfront is. I've read both sites a while back, and both are idiotic, wrong, and scary in very similar ways. As a result, I don't read them anymore, and I don't pay attention to people using them as sources.

If you want me to take you seriously, you'll provide references that won't waste my time.

Comment: Re:This is just a repeat (Score 1) 234

Technically if you have more people competing for a smaller pool of jobs, then H1B shouldn't come into it.

If you're talking about H1B's competing for the job...well the salary should already be set at 'market rates' per the H1B process.

So...US jobs don't get priced lower as a result. Since the job is so critical and they can't find candidates it typically would be at the high end of the cap. They would even pay MORE because the position is for a highly sought engineer.

Right? ...



Oh...right. Sarcasm. This is why H1B needs to just die a fiery death.

Comment: Re:This is just a repeat (Score 1) 234

Yes and no.

The H1B program means you have to hire a qualified, eligible local person before importing...however it's stupidly easy to disqualify candidates. A rule like this one? Yep...pretty sure it's legit as far as H1B regulations are concerned. Now that's it's gotten some spotlight it might not fly as well...but that assumes the media keeps covering it long enough to matter.

The H1B program has so many loopholes it's laughable. It's a bold-faced lie directly covering up exactly what we all know it really is. If there really were a shortage of engineers...I'd say the last 15-20 years would be long enough to rectify the situation. Hell, if there was REAL demand and that many GOOD paying jobs it'd be worth going back for a 4-year education and changing careers. But no...this is not about actual shortages as we all know.

With that said...aren't the majority of the Nokia folks outside the US anyhow?

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 1) 517

Hilarious. You know little about how bills get to the senate floor for a vote, do you? Here, let me help you: The Senate majority leader has almost nothing to do with what bills get voted on in the Senate. So your anger is quite misplaced, and probably should be directed at all the people who have elected a democratic majority to the Senate. But that would mean that you would acknowledge that you are a minority in some areas, and can't just ram your ideology down other people's throats.

I find it also exceptionally hilarious that this attack is coming from the Tea Party, considering that they are nominally libertarian. Buffet, Gates, and Adelson ARE their masters of the universe - at least, they would be, if the Tea Party or the libertarians had any sort of consistency in their beliefs. Instead, this diatribe exposes them for what they really are: run of the mill politicians who are just more xenophobic and nativist than the other politicians. Economically, they are just like the unions that they hate: upset when someone with more money than them uses that money in a way that they dislike.

Sessions can go fuck himself with a chainsaw.

Comment: Re:So now that the UN said it, (Score 1) 261

so says an a/c ? really? you are more scared to comment with your ID than I am?

hey, if what I said makes me a terr-a-wrist(tm), then I'll accept that label. the label is now meaningless.

one wonders if the revolutionists who FOUNDED the US would be now called terrorists.

its meaningless. no more meaning than 'boogeyman'.

who really gives a shit, anyway. the US has lost all moral high ground over the last few decades and we are circling the drain, at this point.

I love what my country used to stand for. but now, its nothing that I would recognize as my own homeland, anymore.

and I give fuck-all who thinks what of me, for I am speaking the truth, here. and everyone with half a mind knows it.

Comment: Re:More Like Subsidized (Score 1) 525

by NeutronCowboy (#47479529) Attached to: Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

The threat of democracy doesn't lie in the distinction between direct voting and representative voting, but in the idea that whatever is popular should be the law.

Then explain how the Constitution came to be. And explain very carefully how it neither was put into place because the majority of the people in power at the time thought it was a good idea, and how it also wasn't the result of an autocratic group of people forcing their will onto others. Just a little tip: you should read the entire Constitution, how it used to look like, what it looks like now, and why it has been changed. It's kinda fascinating all the stuff that got put into there for no other reason than that it was popular and helped people get elected. Too bad the Constitution for you is some magic pixie dust.

Comment: Re:So now that the UN said it, (Score 5, Interesting) 261

wrong. the US now does not care about anything but itself.

rights belong to the highest bidder or power holder.

that means: not you or me and certainly not some powerless speech-giving org.

the US is out of control. we all know this now and we all see it.

the question is: who has enough power to control the current top-dog and put him back in his dog-house?

THAT is the question. the US is not going to give in willingly.

I guess its at last a tiny half-step - having the ROW realize that the US is out of control and is violating the rights of, pretty much, anyone who dares try have a private thought or conversation.

Comment: Re:More Like Subsidized (Score 2) 525

by NeutronCowboy (#47475597) Attached to: Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

Well. One reasonable reply. I guess I should be reasonable as well then.

No that's wrong, libertarians are "like" the current government, just smaller.

But that's the crux of the problem: I haven't seen a workable definition of government that isn't like the current one, just smaller. It either devolves into anarchy, or creates a system that is indistinguishable from the current one, except with fewer laws. And that government has no system to prevent the creation of laws that would be identical to the current one.

Yes, that's the libertarian platform. The difference is in how large the government is and what its responsibilities are, not fundamental changes like eliminating lawmakers... honestly that's a ridiculous notion.

Then do explain: how does a libertarian government not become the current one? I mean, outside of being fully staffed by libertarians, who all adhere to the same notions of government, property, and morality? Which, by the way, is the definition of sectarianism, which is hugely destabilizing to a society. Unless, of course, you further assume that everyone is a libertarian, but then we're right back to my main beef with libertarians: completely unrealistic expectations of how people work.

Somalia and Sudan both have central governments with overreaching power in the areas they control based on Islamic law that any libertarian would find abhorrent. Furthermore, there are a number of competing governments disputing territory within each country, also seeking to impose Islamic law (but, you know, the "true" Islamic law).

I can create a central government in my house that has overreaching power in areas that... well, pick whatever you want. My government doesn't matter though, because the US government has far more power to impose its notions on mine, if it ever finds out that they clash and decides to do something about it. My powers are completely at the mercy of the US government's powers. In other words, it's no power at all. Now, what if I could repel the US government's force? Well, that's completely implausible, but it would mean I could create my own government. And I'd have to, because well, that's what a collection of rules and people enforcing those rules are.

The reason that Somalia and Sudan are important is because they show what happens when a central government is unable to enforce its laws. As you pointed out, another type of government replaces it - automatically. Maybe not in the same territory, but as you said, it always starts somewhere in the territory of the old government, because the old government doesn't care, doesn't have the resources to care, or can't enforce the fact that it cares. In the case of Somalia and Sudan, it's a combination of all three.

There are two reasons that this process matters. One, it shows how a new type of government can come about very quickly. Two, it shows empirically that the new governments always take a very different approach to ruling. More islamist, less authoritarian - whatever you want, but it's going to generally be the antithesis. And that's to be expected, since being prepared to die for the new style of government requires very strong opinions about how much different things should be. There's also the possibility that someone just decided that they'd rather be the ruler, but I'm assuming that's not what libertarians are all about.

This means that there are two reasons why failed states like Sudan and Somalia - or heck, Mexico is skirting really fucking close to that - put the lie to libertarian claims of perfect government. If libertarians would be really so keen to cast off the shackles of the old government, those places are great to start from scratch. I mean, resource wise it stinks, but at least there's so much chaos that you can quickly create your own state according to your own rules, and you'll be much more likely to be able to enforce your own ideals than anywhere else. Yet no libertarian wants to go to those places to start their Galt's Gulch. Furthermore, if libertarian ideals are so obvious, so beneficial to society, there'd be a place where it would have been tried already, and would have succeeded. The fact that all of the revolutions throughout history have never, ever, led to something close to resembling a stable libertarian society tells me that it cannot work long term or on a large scale. You can argue if you want that the pioneers in the American West were the closest thing to a libertarian society, but look what they decided to do: ditch the libertarian ideals and come together in a democracy. There are lots of reasons why that ideal died out, but at the core, it just wasn't as successful at producing the ability to defend the pioneers territory from encroachment as the alternatives.

Now, there is one more argument that I often hear when I get to this stage: yes, but the pioneers only failed because they didn't understand libertarianism, and were misled by others, lied to, and overpowered by evil, power-hungry people. I can only roll my eyes at that, because that is word for word the plaintive cry of every disappointed communist out there, ever. It's why every commune fails at some point. If your best explanation for why I should try your approach is that no one has ever done it right, and you're asking me to ignore thousands of years of history and decades of psychological research that show that it won't work... yeah, good luck with that. I hear there are some sand dunes that haven't been claimed yet. Go try your luck there. Just do it without me.


Comment: Re:More Like Subsidized (Score 1) 525

by NeutronCowboy (#47475271) Attached to: Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

Awwww.... how cute. Changing the subject, are we? Let me just clarify your position for you: I want a government big enough so that it protects me from people I don't like, but too small to protect those who don't like me from me.

Of course, you'd be the knight in shining armor saving everyone around you, so no one would need to be protected from you. Everything you do would be for the greater good of everyone around you. I'm sure of it.

Comment: Re:More Like Subsidized (Score 1) 525

by NeutronCowboy (#47475235) Attached to: Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

Congratulations, you can't read, and are using the Federalist papers as a bible.
1) When he's talking about a pure democracy, he's talking about what's commonly known as direct democracy. The Swiss are the closest thing we have to one, and it's still pretty far away from one. When he's talking about a republic, he's talking about what's commonly known as representative democracy.
2) He's acknowledging that it only applies to very small groups of people. Communes have been frequently tried, and most of them don't last all that long. That's why they're not the model for large-scale governments.
3) If you'd read further, you'd realize that the Federalist papers are still worried about factionalism in a representative democracy, and hope that representatives don't band together in a way that mimics the banding together of people in a direct democracy. Guess what happens to people in any situation? They band together.
4) You're quoting someone constructing a theoretical position of government as if it is a reality. In other words, you're no better than priests quoting the bible and pretending that it is literally the truth. The founding fathers were smart and well educated, but they weren't infallible. Merely saying "Constitution!" or "Federalist Papers!" means nothing. All it tells me is that you don't think.

Keep digging that libertarian hole. I haven't found one yet who deserves any respect.

Comment: Re:More Like Subsidized (Score 1) 525

by NeutronCowboy (#47471769) Attached to: Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

Wow. You really haven't thought your position through, have you? I mean, at all. And by that, I mean that you really have no idea what a government is, how it comes about, what wars are, what causes them, what law enforcement is, or anything related to how humans operate, collaborate, and build societies. I hope you're somewhere in middle school, and you've just not gotten to that part in your education, because otherwise, that kind of ignorance has to be willful.

And by the way, yes, I am confusing libertarian with communists. They both completely fail in providing workable solutions. The best they have is a partial list of facts.

Are you having fun yet?