Ron Paul trending #10 on Yahoo Search
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
and tax it.
Don't tax it. Let it be like a regular product, such as soap or a keyboard.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Soap and keyboards have sales taxes bro. {Edit} I take that back, they don't have federal sales taxes in the United States, but they are taxed by most of the states themselves. So I guess it depends in which context you were speaking to. {/Edit}
modified on Monday, February 22, 2010 4:56 PM
-
Soap and keyboards have sales taxes bro. {Edit} I take that back, they don't have federal sales taxes in the United States, but they are taxed by most of the states themselves. So I guess it depends in which context you were speaking to. {/Edit}
modified on Monday, February 22, 2010 4:56 PM
I know that, but I think Ian meant a special tax similar to the tobacco and alcohol tax.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
I know that, but I think Ian meant a special tax similar to the tobacco and alcohol tax.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
why would I use bad search, to 'make a statement' ?
I'm not saying you have to. In a free society, you do as you please and what makes sense to you, within reason of course.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, every other Cola drink has sucked, but, I drink neither. I do tend to go for smaller soft drink companies, as it happens
Good, I don't drink soda either usually.
Christian Graus wrote:
All politicians are the same. That includes the fringe parties, they are just earlier into the process of becoming totally corrupt. As an Aussie, I know well enough to just hate them all.
As do I, for the most part. Which is precisely my point in my listing of those "pairs". It wasn't to get you to dislike all and make a statement. It was see if you would break the molded pairs if you don't like both. Coke and Pepsi: there are more obscure products out there, though usually, IMO, they suck. So I stick to Coke, because I like it, when I actually do drink soda. Microsoft and Google: There are search engines out there that don't actually take analytics of your searches if you don't want to be another statistic, it's not that Google sucks in searching or anything. Besides, people still have other email servers (such as Yahoo) and therefore their homepage is still Yahoo, if they so choose to keep it as such. Again, break the mold. Democrat and Republican: Most people by now know not to trust politicians in general, and definitely notice it after the bailouts, health care debates, and other crap. So, they're breaking the mold and going to other parties, such as the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc. I think this became abundantly clear at CPAC this weekend.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes. Nothing is changing. Not a damn thing.
Things take time to change, it's not going to happen over night. But see the previous paragraph. Why are you so cynical?
Christian Graus wrote:
Because I prefer a search engine that works ? This sounds like a meaningless catchphrase to me. Please define how I can 'break the mold' ?
By not being so cynical. Again, things don't change overnight. And be open to ideas of change (real ideas of change, not just a catchphrase that says "Change
josda1000 wrote:
In a free society, you do as you please and what makes sense to you, within reason of course.
Of course. I am asking you why it would make sense to use an inferior product to make a statement.
josda1000 wrote:
Good, I don't drink soda either usually.
I didn't anyhow, but I've been reading a book on how much it costs to create those little cans. It's almost as stupid as bottled water. I buy juice, or I make juice out of my own fruit, or I buy from smaller, local suppliers of soft drink if I am out. We also have a sodastream, if we MUST have something with bubbles in it.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, break the mold.
For what reason tho ? Google works. I could care less what they analyse in the process.
josda1000 wrote:
Why are you so cynical?
Are you in your 20s ?
josda1000 wrote:
And be open to ideas of change (real ideas of change, not just a catchphrase that says "Change you can believe in.")
I am always open to ideas of positive change. I just have no faith in politics as an arena where I can expect to see anything positive. Examples of things I do to try to be a force for positive change: I avoid all plastic containers when buying things like milk I pay more for milk in order to buy from a smaller local producer. I do the same for meat and other produce I never buy supermarket branded items, because I am convinced if they get a monopoly, they will not use it for good I grow as much of my own food as I can, and give it away to people around me, so they can taste what real vegetables and fruit are like, too. We support a couple of third world charities, that are focused on the well being of children. I am all for being a force for good, and all for recognising how your choices affect more than you, and can affect you long term in a way that's not in your interests. But when I see a politician talking about change, IMO they are talking about changing who is getting paid to do the top job, not any change that will do me any good.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm 25.
Thought so :-) Nothing wrong with that. I wish my body was still 25. I'd not go back to being younger altogether, tho.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
why would I use bad search, to 'make a statement' ?
I'm not saying you have to. In a free society, you do as you please and what makes sense to you, within reason of course.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, every other Cola drink has sucked, but, I drink neither. I do tend to go for smaller soft drink companies, as it happens
Good, I don't drink soda either usually.
Christian Graus wrote:
All politicians are the same. That includes the fringe parties, they are just earlier into the process of becoming totally corrupt. As an Aussie, I know well enough to just hate them all.
As do I, for the most part. Which is precisely my point in my listing of those "pairs". It wasn't to get you to dislike all and make a statement. It was see if you would break the molded pairs if you don't like both. Coke and Pepsi: there are more obscure products out there, though usually, IMO, they suck. So I stick to Coke, because I like it, when I actually do drink soda. Microsoft and Google: There are search engines out there that don't actually take analytics of your searches if you don't want to be another statistic, it's not that Google sucks in searching or anything. Besides, people still have other email servers (such as Yahoo) and therefore their homepage is still Yahoo, if they so choose to keep it as such. Again, break the mold. Democrat and Republican: Most people by now know not to trust politicians in general, and definitely notice it after the bailouts, health care debates, and other crap. So, they're breaking the mold and going to other parties, such as the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc. I think this became abundantly clear at CPAC this weekend.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes. Nothing is changing. Not a damn thing.
Things take time to change, it's not going to happen over night. But see the previous paragraph. Why are you so cynical?
Christian Graus wrote:
Because I prefer a search engine that works ? This sounds like a meaningless catchphrase to me. Please define how I can 'break the mold' ?
By not being so cynical. Again, things don't change overnight. And be open to ideas of change (real ideas of change, not just a catchphrase that says "Change
josda1000 wrote:
Plus, we can learn from each other.
I'm sorry, I've known him a lot longer than you and all he's taught me, is to stay off drugs.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I know that, but I think Ian meant a special tax similar to the tobacco and alcohol tax.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
I did. I think these would need some extra regulation along the same lines... Keep in mind, though, that if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now. A lot of the high prices of illegal drugs are due to the difficulty and risk involved in getting them into the country. With weed in particular, though... I don't think anything beyond normal sales tax would make sense for that. I mean, you can grow the stuff in your back yard. For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
Plus, we can learn from each other.
I'm sorry, I've known him a lot longer than you and all he's taught me, is to stay off drugs.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Haha, nice! I gotta quote that, Christian :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
In a free society, you do as you please and what makes sense to you, within reason of course.
Of course. I am asking you why it would make sense to use an inferior product to make a statement.
josda1000 wrote:
Good, I don't drink soda either usually.
I didn't anyhow, but I've been reading a book on how much it costs to create those little cans. It's almost as stupid as bottled water. I buy juice, or I make juice out of my own fruit, or I buy from smaller, local suppliers of soft drink if I am out. We also have a sodastream, if we MUST have something with bubbles in it.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, break the mold.
For what reason tho ? Google works. I could care less what they analyse in the process.
josda1000 wrote:
Why are you so cynical?
Are you in your 20s ?
josda1000 wrote:
And be open to ideas of change (real ideas of change, not just a catchphrase that says "Change you can believe in.")
I am always open to ideas of positive change. I just have no faith in politics as an arena where I can expect to see anything positive. Examples of things I do to try to be a force for positive change: I avoid all plastic containers when buying things like milk I pay more for milk in order to buy from a smaller local producer. I do the same for meat and other produce I never buy supermarket branded items, because I am convinced if they get a monopoly, they will not use it for good I grow as much of my own food as I can, and give it away to people around me, so they can taste what real vegetables and fruit are like, too. We support a couple of third world charities, that are focused on the well being of children. I am all for being a force for good, and all for recognising how your choices affect more than you, and can affect you long term in a way that's not in your interests. But when I see a politician talking about change, IMO they are talking about changing who is getting paid to do the top job, not any change that will do me any good.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm 25.
Thought so :-) Nothing wrong with that. I wish my body was still 25. I'd not go back to being younger altogether, tho.
Christian Graus wrote:
I am asking you why it would make sense to use an inferior product to make a statement.
I'm not saying you should! lol If you like Google, by all means! I'm not saying to make a statement. All I'm saying is that if Joe likes something else, he'll use it! Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
For what reason tho ? Google works. I could care less what they analyse in the process.
This is again, precisely my point. If you like Google, go ahead and use it. That's the true beauty of capitalism in the first place. A good product gets well used, and the company gains wealth because they took the time to put a good quality product out into the market. So, if you don't mind the analytics, by all means, go for it.
Christian Graus wrote:
when I see a politician talking about change, IMO they are talking about changing who is getting paid to do the top job, not any change that will do me any good.
I definitely hear you on that one. That's why I've learned to do more research on people and really try to "break the mold", as it were. And honestly, I definitely don't see a problem with Paul at all, he seems sincere. Every vote he's ever made has been based wholly on principle, even if that meant being the lone "nay" vote a few times.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, atrophy is a whole different thing, that's how the world works.
Do you mean apathy?
-
I did. I think these would need some extra regulation along the same lines... Keep in mind, though, that if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now. A lot of the high prices of illegal drugs are due to the difficulty and risk involved in getting them into the country. With weed in particular, though... I don't think anything beyond normal sales tax would make sense for that. I mean, you can grow the stuff in your back yard. For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now.
Definitely.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
This is a problem for me... I mean, I definitely understand why you would say this, but a libertarian has a problem with the FDA existing in the first place. IMO, the market would solve the problems of terrible chemicals in drugs, with good doctors and hospitals and such. As for the extra taxes, that falls under Congress directly anyway, from what I understand, so it has nothing to do with the FDA when it comes to the tax issue.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Plus, we can learn from each other.
I'm sorry, I've known him a lot longer than you and all he's taught me, is to stay off drugs.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I did. I think these would need some extra regulation along the same lines... Keep in mind, though, that if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now. A lot of the high prices of illegal drugs are due to the difficulty and risk involved in getting them into the country. With weed in particular, though... I don't think anything beyond normal sales tax would make sense for that. I mean, you can grow the stuff in your back yard. For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)I think the only regulation needed would be a requirement to measure potency. Nothing more. Fuck more taxes, we need less taxes, not more.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Well, that is true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I am asking you why it would make sense to use an inferior product to make a statement.
I'm not saying you should! lol If you like Google, by all means! I'm not saying to make a statement. All I'm saying is that if Joe likes something else, he'll use it! Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
For what reason tho ? Google works. I could care less what they analyse in the process.
This is again, precisely my point. If you like Google, go ahead and use it. That's the true beauty of capitalism in the first place. A good product gets well used, and the company gains wealth because they took the time to put a good quality product out into the market. So, if you don't mind the analytics, by all means, go for it.
Christian Graus wrote:
when I see a politician talking about change, IMO they are talking about changing who is getting paid to do the top job, not any change that will do me any good.
I definitely hear you on that one. That's why I've learned to do more research on people and really try to "break the mold", as it were. And honestly, I definitely don't see a problem with Paul at all, he seems sincere. Every vote he's ever made has been based wholly on principle, even if that meant being the lone "nay" vote a few times.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, atrophy is a whole different thing, that's how the world works.
Do you mean apathy?
josda1000 wrote:
Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
josda1000 wrote:
Do you mean apathy?
No, I don't.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not.
Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
josda1000 wrote:
Do you mean apathy?
No, I don't.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not. Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not. They are different products, but that's how it works in the different industries. Does Joe like Coke? Does Joe like Yahoo? If Coke tastes good to him, he'll like it. If Yahoo works well for Joe, he'll like it. In both cases, he'll use it. It's a matter of semantics. I find my argument to still stand. Put another way: this was my original argument.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Therefore, if Joe likes Yahoo, Joe will use Yahoo. If you don't like it, that's not part of Joe's equation in whether he uses Yahoo or not. Sure. But we're not talking about the taste of cola. We're talking about if something works or not.
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not. They are different products, but that's how it works in the different industries. Does Joe like Coke? Does Joe like Yahoo? If Coke tastes good to him, he'll like it. If Yahoo works well for Joe, he'll like it. In both cases, he'll use it. It's a matter of semantics. I find my argument to still stand. Put another way: this was my original argument.
josda1000 wrote:
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not.
No, it's different. If I like Pepsi and you like Coke, how can we discuss or quantify that. If you use a different search engine, it's quantifiable if the results you get are better than I get with google.
josda1000 wrote:
Put another way: this was my original argument.
But now you've lost me completely. You said something about going against the grain, which seems to imply using something not mainstream for the sake of doing so. You've lost that point along the way, and I have no idea what you meant when you said I needed to 'make a stand', or whatever it was you said.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
You're really losing me. Because that's pretty much the same thing. Coke vs Pepsi: if it tastes good or not. Google vs Microsoft: if it works or not.
No, it's different. If I like Pepsi and you like Coke, how can we discuss or quantify that. If you use a different search engine, it's quantifiable if the results you get are better than I get with google.
josda1000 wrote:
Put another way: this was my original argument.
But now you've lost me completely. You said something about going against the grain, which seems to imply using something not mainstream for the sake of doing so. You've lost that point along the way, and I have no idea what you meant when you said I needed to 'make a stand', or whatever it was you said.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
No, I said, "break the mold". I've said this again and again in this thread: All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it? As you said with the Coke/Pepsi thing, you go with the smaller third party colas because you didn't care for Coke/Pepsi. And then Google/Microsoft, you choose Google because you find it to be more than competent. It works well for you. That's great. Others will go for yahoo for whatever reason they choose, however they quantify it to satisfy their needs. There are more than two answers to everything, whether it has to do with taste or not. You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say. BUT! Since you like Google, you have no reason to "break the mold", or "go against the mainstream" or whatever. And that's fine. Do as you will; that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I mean hell, I use Google a ton. I'm not saying to use something that is not the mainstream just for the sake of making a statement. Though, if you wish, go for it. But that is not my case at all.
-
No, I said, "break the mold". I've said this again and again in this thread: All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it? As you said with the Coke/Pepsi thing, you go with the smaller third party colas because you didn't care for Coke/Pepsi. And then Google/Microsoft, you choose Google because you find it to be more than competent. It works well for you. That's great. Others will go for yahoo for whatever reason they choose, however they quantify it to satisfy their needs. There are more than two answers to everything, whether it has to do with taste or not. You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say. BUT! Since you like Google, you have no reason to "break the mold", or "go against the mainstream" or whatever. And that's fine. Do as you will; that's exactly what I'm trying to say. I mean hell, I use Google a ton. I'm not saying to use something that is not the mainstream just for the sake of making a statement. Though, if you wish, go for it. But that is not my case at all.
josda1000 wrote:
All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it?
Well, then I agree. I don't go for anything mainstream unless I like it.
josda1000 wrote:
You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say.
Sure. I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
Bob Emmett wrote:
Just say No! I did. Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes. I mean come on, what the hell do you like about anyone else? What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul? Just picking your brain, especially after a statement like that.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
Bob Emmett wrote:
Just say No! I did. Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes. I mean come on, what the hell do you like about anyone else? What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul? Just picking your brain, especially after a statement like that.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You really want a dead man as Pres.? I suppose it would be an improvement on every one since Ike.
josda1000 wrote:
And that is precisely the whole point of voting for who you like (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
And the fact that the man you like is quite likely to die in office in no way influences your vote?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why? He's 7 years older than me, that's why.
josda1000 wrote:
If that's the only reason why you'd vote no, it would be every reason to vote yes.
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office. (I was surprised, though, that the site did not block votes coming from outside of the USA.)
josda1000 wrote:
What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul?
Obama was young enough, the others were too old. Other than that, what's to choose? They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
josda1000 wrote:
All it means is that if you dislike two of the "mainstream" things, why go with it?
Well, then I agree. I don't go for anything mainstream unless I like it.
josda1000 wrote:
You could argue to users to not use Yahoo for whatever reason, but people actually do use it, believe it or not. And they have their reasons, whatever they are. That's all I'm trying to say.
Sure. I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Bingo. I think you're seeing my point now. That's why I'm trying to post these messages, along with CSS, to see if one would vote for a different party than their own. Basically it's just coming down to a party vote thing. (Just vote for your team and hope they win!) That's the most idiotic thing ever. You should be voting your conscience, not for your team. I've been trying to get this message out in different forms, and it's like yelling at a wall.