It's loosely based on Hunan cuisine
I initially read that as "Human" cuisine...as a picky eater, I can say that the meaning of the sentence as a whole didn't change substantially once I noticed my error.
Replying to myself - I realize that the earlier comment was slightly offtopic, given that it was focused on USian politics and not the UKian issues, but I think the overarching theme is the same.
Given a populace driven by misinformation on both sides, a margin this close cannot be considered "What the people want" in the truest sense. The whole reason for representative democracy is that people can't be bothered to get actual facts (or, barring that, some semblance of knowledge for and against an issue). We hire politicians to do that for us.
The fact that the system is populated with humans and is inherently corrupt doesn't change that any. It's still a smaller number of people who can devote considerably more time to the issue than I can, and who have resources to get the necessary information better than I can by using various news sources.
Will they fail? Absolutely. Will they fail as much as if we did phone in voting for every major decision based on which Lord / Senator danced the best? Yeah...I'm not so sure on that one.
Depending on exactly what question you're asking - yes. I certainly do. Not necessarily in an argumentative way, but it's still valid.
We've got a democratic system that has two parties which have a number of wedge issues on either side. In order to stand out from the other party, each of them continues to push deeper into the territory of their respective base.
As a result, you frequently get people voting not because someone truly matches their ideological stance, but because they don't want someone who is further away from their ideologies. Instead of us having two largely similar candidates debating over nuanced policy measures and differing views of how they feel the country should proceed, we get demagoguery that demonizes the opposition and alienates a decent portion of the people who would otherwise claim to be a part of that party.
I think that with a split that is that close to 50/50 (ignoring the actual voter turnout), you have a population that cares strongly about some hot-button topics, but which probably agrees on other hot-button topics (with the results varying from person to person). Presidents seem to have this opinion that they have a mandate from the masses, when in fact they have at best the accession of a plurality.
This is both good and bad. If we saw 80% voter turnout and a 87% vote for one person, it would suggest that the other party has failed so miserably that America completely agrees on what needs to be done. In general, while the parties appear to be moving ever further apart, the average of where they are still seems to be going more or less in the direction that democrazy is suggesting that it wants to go.
Aside: I saw the typo in the last line there, and decided to keep it because, well, its apropos.
And proved you are either anti-freedom yourself or a psychopath - the only types of people who would not instantly see that this is the only logical definition.
"If you don't agree with me, you're obviously crazy."
Yeah, there's the circlejerk event horizon. Nothing left for me to do here, so I'll just let you get back to fapping to your slightly-right-of-Ghenghis-Khan Harpy-queen.
I doubt it'll make much difference in the long run, after seeing how
Maybe after some time, one or two of these new TLDs will get some legitimacy. I expect, though, this will just end up making me spend that much more time updating my check_helo_access and smtpd_sender_restrictions pcre files...
Neither group gives an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating toroid about "liberty", they just declare their own particular doctrine to be $liberty and then claim the other side is anti-$liberty, which becomes semi-true if you allow for inline evaluation. It's just like the zealous supporters of a certain licensing when they declare that their license is "free as in freedom*" (*using our specially crafted definition of freedom). If that redefinition is rejected, there's nothing on either side but propaganda and bullshit.
And you're still assuming I'm "the right", which is cute.
Both argue that the other mostly want the liberty to tell others how to live. Only the left is correct about that though.
Wow. Okay, now that my irony meter is blown, I'm outta here. Pax.
First depends on what resources you're talking about. There's plenty of worry about the sustainability of quite a few resources, including ones which will likely be further used up in making this robot worker army.
Second, recycling offers neither 100% efficient returns, nor is it free.
Third and fourth are wishful thinking, at best.
It should not come as a surprise to you that some of the most expensive ~350 sq. mi. in the US might not be indicative of the other 3.7 million...
It's interesting that the supporting dialog in Star Trek:TNG reveals most people don't work with technology. Since robots in the ST universe do all the manual labour, it leaves one asking what do all those humanoids produce?
and no, there is no real raw materials constraint
really feels like it makes your argument questionable.
Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'open' that I wasn't previously aware of.
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.