1 - 10 Next
Best seller lists don't always equate to strong sales at specific stores. A better yardstick would be does their book selection contain other best-selling books critical of the President or pushing for conservative policies? If so, then it's less likely that the book was removed for political ideology. I don't shop at Costco much and I buy books electronically, so I have no idea.
*Sigh* I never said he was a techie. Feel free to scroll up and read my comments again. I never mentioned his technical skills or lack there of. Having worked professionally in the tech field for close to two decades, I'm quite aware of the stories, accomplishments, and shortcomings of Microsoft and their products. Now, lets assume your assessment of Microsoft is correct and they only "copy other people's work" - which I find arguable as they have introduced a few things and refined others. Not nearly as innovative as other companies, but they are not completely without new ideas. But, let's assume your position is correct. That means that a guy with zero original ideas turned a $50K investment into one of the biggest companies in the world and himself into the wealthiest man in the world (at one time) simply by copying the ideas of others. That seems to show a pretty good feel for business - and makes it rather ridiculous to claim he merely succeeded because of family connections. Wow - that sounds familiar.....oh yeah, that's exactly what I said above. You can dismiss his politics, you can dismiss his ethics, you can dismiss his technical skills...you can even equate a portion of his success to having the right connections and being in the right place at the right time. But, you cannot with any level of logic completely dismiss his skills at managing and growing his business.
No she wasn't, she was on the board of the United Way - NOT IBM. She was a friend of the CEO of IBM who got his foot in the door, but that hardly means he made the DOS decision on a whime because she "greased the skids".
First off - I said business accumen, not technical talent. Secondly - I didn't say he wrote DOS, I was referring to the BASIC interpreter. Thirdly - regardless of him being sued, turning a $50K investment is pretty strong indicator of business acumen.
AlwaysLiberty - sorry, it's not right. Firstly - I'd encourage you to go look at every single poll and every single Presidential candidate that has suggested privatizing SS and see how well it worked out for them. Have you ever read on the Galveston County privatized Social Security plan? Well Galveston County is one of the few places in the US that is legally able to opt out of Social Security - the plan is an amazing success, stable, well-funded, and provides a MUCH better retirement than Social Security. Well, I live about 50 miles from there - just 50 miles from a living, breathing example of how well the privitization works and still can find very few people who support privatizing Social Security. It's sad really. Under your plan - we keep all existing seniors on Medicare and SS? That alone means the SS tax continues until they are dead since the plan is "pay as you go". Current taxes go to current beneficiaries....meaning that all current workers will continue paying for SS and Medicare despite the fact that everyone 49 and under will never see a dime of the money they have paid into it. So - that money will continue to be spent (under your plan) and will continue to be spent for the next 30 or so years until the people currently 50 die and are removed from the plan. I agree with you it's the way to go, but that's hardly going to be taxes that "disappear immediately". Note that also doesn't cover the trillions in underfunded entitlements. Granted most of that underfunded amount won't come into play under your plan, but even if only 2% comes into play, that is still another $2 trillion you need to account for. So you think you can get a Constitutional Amendment passed that eliminates it for everyone under 50? I'm less than optimistic. The you have the interest on the national debt, which for FY 2013 was right at around half a trillion dollars. Again, that is mandatory spending that cannot be ignored. Then we have to pay for government - the things we want to keep, even at a reduced amount. Assuming everything passed like you say it will - really, not a bad plan at all, sir. I do think people would see a modest reduction in the burden of government. I don't think it would be as big as you think it would because of the spending I mentioned above plus since about half of the US recieves a subsidy of some sort, their reduction will have to cover that loss. Problem is - I don't believe it has the slightest chance of ever happening.
I'm going to take your "stupidity" comment as a joke, tho I caution you that it came off as a bit antagonistic. I personally prefer to keep the debates civil and respectful. Now, it's only "stupid" when you do the same thing and expect different results. It's not "stupid" when you know what you are getting and are merely making a choice between two options. And that's what it is. There has NEVER been a third party candidate to win the general election, they only act as a spoiler. So a vote for the third candidate is essentially a vote against whoever is your favorite of the two major party candidates, and a vote for your least favorite. That's simply how it works. So, why do I vote for Pubs over Dems? - Easy. Pubs restrictions on liberty are mostly red meat thrown to the social conservatives that are generally kept in check by state governments and/or the courts.....ie, Abortion will never become illegal as long as Roe v Wade stands and I don't see it being overturned. Dem economic and legal policies have, IMHO, a much more direct effect on my personal liberties and a long term damaging effect on the country as a whole that is NOT kept in check and has a mathematical inevitability of damaging economic impact on the country within my lifetime. Bankrupting the country and turning us into a third-world nation kind of trumps all the stupid things the Democrats do. And yes, the Pubs have done their own stupid things to help bankrupt the country - I see the difference as the Pubs are "reaarnging the deck chairs on the Titanic" while the Dems are simulatneously opening all the watertight doors and looking for another iceberg to ram. And since you brought it up - I don't really have an optimistic view of the country right now. We have roughly have the country who believe we can tax/spend our way to prosperity and the other half who while they have what I feel is the correct view of the situation and how to correct it - insist on such an ideological purity of candidates that they see a loss of person who may not have been great as a conservative candidate, was still light years better than the guy we have - as some sort of moral victory. It's like the don't understand the long-term implications of the loss and how even an absolutely big government Republican president, who still nominated Constitutionalists for the Supreme Court would be better than what we have now.
Exactly - and I have shown, people fear "big government" as an abstract concept, not as specific policies. Obamacare is by definition, "Big Government", yet you still have roughly half the country supporting it. (43% as of 6/24). Assuming your 72% number is correct - that means that there are some people who "fear big Government" yet still want a ridiculously flawed government health care plan. It's like everything else in politics - it is very easy to get people to support or oppose vague concepts, but much harder to get support for concrete examples. It's why liberals always tout polls showing support for increased funding and conservatives always rebutt with polls showing support for lower taxes and cutting the size of government. It's when you get specific - "cutting X" or "raising taxes Y% to increase funding for Z" that you can find real support.
Well, I appreciate it, sir. Thank you for the lively, intelligent, and (best of all) respectful discussion. I may disagree, but I respect you and your opinion. Take care, guys.
Very well written, sir. And good points. I especially like your reference to the 17th Amendment which was (I agree) a significant turning point in our history. I hate to disagree, but I'm not as confident as you on your specific proposal. As I have pointed out, a lot of those "special interests" with their hands out are voters and a majority of Americans receive some form of handout or subsidy. You cut that off, you are going to have a LOT of unhappy voters who may not be able to see the benefits of cutting government spending (most of which would be long-term and indirect) compared to the loss of the subsidy which would be both immediate and direct. This would also directly affect the middle class since they are strong beneficiaries of the subsidies. Couple this with the fact that even those not directly affected will still have friends, neighbors, family members, church members - directly affected, and the lack of knowledge of a long term benefit will make the proposal seem harsh. So unless you have a solution that sees the American populace seeing a direct turnaround economically and benefits outweighing the subsidy cuts - then your proposal will last exactly until the next Congress comes in to reverse it...so less than two years. Read Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams regarding the specific problem people have in identifying not just the direct effects, but the indirect effects of economic policy. Do you honestly think that no politicians have suggested and/or tried this thing before? And before you think you can couple this proposal with tax cuts or other benefits to offset the pain of the cuts, remember you will have to get past the Senate and the White House, including a very likely Democrat filibuster in the Senate. The current system is directly set up to prevent big changes to the system - hell Obamacare was a fluke that only was possibly due to several unfortunate coincidences at the same time.
Sorry, to disagree. But you are wrong. Yes, a political opponent has to differentiate himself/herself from the opposition but do so in a way that doesn't alienate the voters. You have to educate people on WHY privatizing Social Security is a good thing...and ultimately turning it into a completely private program. But, you don't get elected running on eliminating Social Security. Why? BECAUSE LIKE 80% OF THE COUNTRY SUPPORTS IT. Even partial social security privatization barely squeaks a majority support (52%).
1 - 10 Next