If by "select few" you mean anyone who reviews the facts of the matter, reads the studies, and looks at the government's own numbers, then yes.

I note you did not present evidence or reasoning to formulate a disagreement with me. You demonstrate the particular form of irrationality most rampant in this nation with your failed attempt at a cheap shot. Religious traditions call it "pride" but fail to really provide a definition, sadly. It's this need to assert a phony sense of superiority by showing empty contempt for someone else who has done nothing wrong to you, or otherwise putting that person down, since you already judged that person as inferior to you.

It's just the kind of thing that will prevent you from being self-correcting, from recognizing and trying to constructively remedy your own faults as they occur. The more extreme form is the "perpetual victim", whose problems are always caused by others because nothing is ever his or her fault. The small-minded view things in terms of fault and blame and how to redirect those against someone else. People with even a little wisdom view things in terms of cause and effect and realize that if a problem is your own fault, that's good, because that means you can change it by making a better choice.

You're better than the petty, small-minded behavior you're displaying here.

Nothing "won" that way ever turns out well in the end. The practice is one reason the US has so many batshit insane laws like the War on Some Drugs that don't stand up to analysis, and continues to keep these laws even after this is well known.

The lack of rationality will have been the root cause of our downfall.

If you're looking for a fan of Microsoft to defend the merits of their software, you're barkin' up the wrong tree, friend. I've been a Linux user since around 1996 or so and have no interest in Microsoft products.

I simply found it amusing the way that guy worded his sentence, saying that something was free ... after you pay. That's all. I have no idea how it can be so difficult to appreciate (or dislike) a simple jest.

Actually you had to choose between two possible interpretations of what I said. 1) I am being facetious and am simply making a joke about the way he worded that, and 2) I was making a factual statement about developing software on (or for) the iPad. Because there was no additional context, you had to pick one. Naturally you chose the one that lets you make a smug comment while judging yourself smarter than me.

Is that bliss? Seems the product of a deep-seated (and horribly widespread) insecurity to me.

Sure, and the dealership just GAVE ME the car I'm driving after charging me money for it! Wow that was nice of them.

Require tests of one's ability to actually maneuver the car skillfully and to perform various emergency maneuvers in order to obtain a license, instead of the test being little more than memorizing traffic signs and rules. When about 50% to 75% of all applicants fail and must re-take the test, it is comprehensive enough. Require all retirees to re-take this test every two years in order to obtain a license. Treat "failure to yield" and "following too closely" as automatic fails of the test, and treat these violations as nearly as serious as DUI for licensed drivers on public roads. Stop worrying so damned much about speeding since it rarely causes accidents, and start telling cops to ticket slow drivers because they actually do create hazards for others.

We certainly can do this, but you can see there is no political will to carry it out despite all the "driving is a privilege, not a right" mantras you might hear from the states. The states themselves would receive far less in ticket revenues if poor drivers were kept off the roads, so again they have a disincentive.

There's a cause alright, and it's quite deliberate.

Historically education (especially higher education) was not for the purpose of job training. That was handled by other means such as apprenticeships. Education was for the purpose of personal enrichment and quality of life.

A nation of people who can effectively work their corporate jobs but believe everything the TV tells them will create a fascist dictatorship. In the USA it will probably be a "soft tyranny" of the "we know what's best for you, or else" type, not the "strong man with an iron fist" dictatorships we've seen in the past.

That double standard will continue to exist so long as (too many) women continue to use sex appeal as a weapon of manipulation and a means of getting what they want.

If the significance of a woman's body and a woman's sexuality were to decline and become equal with mens', both effects would happen. It would be less useful as a tool of manipulation by unscrupulous women (the ones a wise man avoids) AND people would stop making a big deal out of every time a woman's body is exposed.

It's a win for people who view strife and chaos as a means to achieve power. Historically, a peaceful prosperous nation with no crises and no serious threats has never been a means of expanding political power. "All lose" in the general sense, because the few who do gain are so tiny in number that they are less than a rounding error compared to those who lose, so I don't think your statement is generally false.

You probably noticed my post contained no such recommendation. Personally, I really don't want to rely on the government to protect me from things that I can protect myself from merely by using good judgment and not taking stupid and unnecessary risks. If I do take a stupid and unnecessary risk and it results in regret and humiliation, I don't view that as a law enforcement problem.

Then there's the whole topic of how one actually gets to be a major political candidate and why no one who wants to strongly reduce the size and power of government is likely to ever get the financial backing it takes to win an election.

Actually I'm more of a small-'l' libertarian. Force, threat of force, and fraud are the major things a government should protect you from.

What the law should say and what constitutes a good, rational decision are two separate issues.

It's not slander if it's factually correct.