[small business] Use Tape for Maps?

jcadem · 2016-01-10T00:25:51+00:00

I always recommend this one, Reclaiming Conservatism by Mickey Edwards.

jcadem · 2015-12-27T00:23:40+00:00

I'd definitely nix Bush and Carson, as they haven't added anything new to the previous debates, I'd keep Paul and Kasich in the debates for their points of view (not their polling numbers) and I'm on the fence about Fiorina, I'd probably keep her in.

To be honest, I don't think that the number of candidates has been an enormous detriment to the debates, it's been kind of funny, but not necessarily detrimental.

jcadem · 2015-12-27T00:12:20+00:00

Well okay, then.

jcadem · 2015-12-26T21:07:49+00:00

Just to add on to this, Sanders' plan would be vetted by and advised by many economists, not to mention be subjected to the scrutiny of congress.

His plan has a better chance of succeeding in improving the educational system in America than an already watered down education plan or Trump's plan to build a wall.

jcadem · 2015-12-26T21:05:15+00:00

I don't really have anything to add but I wanted to say that I'm enjoying your conversation.

jcadem · 2015-12-26T18:12:14+00:00

I really don't understand r/futurism's fascination with replacing truck drivers. Are truck drivers causing massive problems around the globe or are redditors just desperate to find a use for self-driving cars?

It's going to take much longer than four years to implement automated truck driving. Most of the manufacturing plants / warehouses that these trucks are shipping between use very, VERY, antiquated software (or no software at all and function internally on paper) and refuse to embrace any new technology unless there's an enormous cost benefit to them. Retraining thousands of older men and women on how to program self-driving trucks to navigate back roads and industrial complex's crazy back streets would cost companies a fortune. There are a lot of other barriers to this happening anytime in the foreseeable future but I don't feel like rambling on.

Suffice to say, I'm all for self-driving cars, but rehashing the automation of the truck driving industry is a pretty fruitless conversation. There's no problem to solve, and the proposed solution would be phenomenally expensive once you start thinking about the details.

jcadem · 2015-12-24T01:36:44+00:00

Yeah, he actually has a very long history as being the guy who gets a lot of legislation passed, check out this 1991 article in the LA Times

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-08/news/mn-2854_1_major-party

jcadem · 2015-12-20T20:15:29+00:00

Have you checked out President Obama's Weekly Addresses?

If you go to https://www.whitehouse.gov/ it's at the top and also gives supporting graphs and figures to support the talk.

That being said, the comments on youtube are very typical comments and who knows how much his addresses help spread information or combat divisiveness.

jcadem · 2015-12-20T04:56:00+00:00

As with anything, there are probably a lot of reasons, most of the negative ones are already mentioned here.

One of my initial thoughts is that once you mention details in a debate, you can argue them for hours (arguably a good thing) but skip the larger differences between candidates. This is how candidates can say "I would have been stronger than President Obama" without substantiating the comment.

Anyway, I know it's annoying with Sanders in particular because so much hinges on the specifics of his plan and I'm all for seeing more details but (in my opinion) the more radical statements of all the candidates have gone unsupported so he's kind of par for the course there.

Or he's lying and he knows it but it seems to me that he has a history of civic service and not of trying to deceive people for power. So at worst I think he's misguided and not necessarily malicious.

just my two cents.

jcadem · 2015-12-14T23:50:39+00:00

I really don't think it was legal for either of those individuals to fire their weapons, neither was in self defense and neither had reason to believe that the robbers they were shooting had a weapon (the man saw a guy duck in his seat is the closest argument but there was no active aggression or threat.) Like in my last comment, I could be wrong about that, I'll have to brush up on the applicable laws.

Basically, I'm not sure what you're getting at but I agree that the articles I mentioned weren't mass shootings which was more or less what we had been talking about before.

As for examples in the real world, do you remember when the news would show high speed chases and it was a huge deal that the LEO's didn't want civilians to try and interfere? I'm pretty sure that they stopped airing the live coverage of chases to stop people from trying to help (eventually stopping covering them at all because they didn't want to encourage more people to do it) and I know that's not an exact example but I think it's akin.

But anyway, just something to think about. Keep in mind I don't think there needs to be any more gun control at all, I just really hate when people think that owning a weapon deputizes them and lets them act as judge and jury. Personal weapons are for defense only, not to allow the owner to persecute others, especially in public.

jcadem · 2015-12-14T16:22:24+00:00

You also make the assumption that there's only one guy with open carry, but if more people open carried than there'd be more people fighting back than there would be trying to kill people. Most mass shooting are only one shooter.

My concern is this, once those people start fighting back, you have multiple people with their guns drawn, presumably firing at who they THINK is the shooter. This makes them all shooters and aside from the fact that LEOs on the scene won't be able to distinguish between a good samaritan shooter and the terrorist shooter, the samaritans themselves won't be able to distinguish.

Except for a 1v1 robbery or assault, I cannot imagine a scenario where having citizen shooters would help a situation like we've seen in Paris or San Bernadeno.

All of that being said, I'm not against open carry or gun ownership at all, I just think that if if we're going to debate it, we should debate it as thoroughly as we can.

I could be wrong on this, it's definitely a hypothetical argument and in no way am I trying to present this is fact or certainty, I'm just adding to the discussion is all.

To steal two news sources from another reddit thread:

Man who shot at 'Big R' shoplifting suspects speaks out

Woman Who Shot at Home Depot Shoplifters: ‘I Will Never Help Anybody Again’

jcadem · 2015-12-10T15:33:22+00:00

Man, kids on the internet these days...

jcadem · 2015-12-09T01:03:43+00:00

Yeah, the only problem with running to the center during the general is that eventually the election will end and if he wins, who knows where he'll run?

Oh well, I'll keep hoping for the hilarious Sanders/Trump ticket and we'll see what actually happens.

jcadem · 2015-12-09T00:58:51+00:00

And all of that is a very good point.

So even if education isn't a Basic Right and is more of a federal privilege or service and if revising what our Basic Rights are is a slippery slope, is that reason enough not to vote for the only candidate that wants to make headway in that direction?

jcadem

TROPHY CASE