I would rather live in a world/country where I could get killed by a terrorist attack than one where the government watches my every move.
You miss the point of his statement completely.
There are BILLIONS of calls, every day by millions of Americans, BILLIONS of texts every day, etc by Americans. In WHAT way does it make sense to monitor ALL of that?!
So according to this idiot, if you simply tell the security services you are no threat that is somehow supposed to prove you are no threat?
Ever hear of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? You must not have. Allow me to explain then. You could be accused of a crime or someone could think you're a threat, but until they prove it or you do something to prove it, they can't stop you from doing what you're doing so long as you're not endangering lives or putting others at risk.
See, some of us, apparently not you, were brought up under the idea of Innocent Until Proven Guilty when it comes to law enforcement in America.
What the NSA is doing is going "everyone's guilty unless they can prove their innocence".
Maybe we should dump their phone records, the phone records of all the people who work for them, their families, their friends, anyone who's ever been in contact with them, their emails, their snail mail, etc. and see how they like it.
Of course, that won't happen. After all, the House keeps trying to repeal Obamacare, even though they get free health benefits for as long as they're in Congress.
Be sure to include the fact that this is important only to a small number of people in the know, while nearly everyone else who doesn't know doesn't worry about it.
ootb, when this is explained to people, how buying an expensive 300-500 dollar phone can only be used by one provider and then you have to buy a new phone to change providers, people just look aghast by that because it doesn't make sense.
See, blue, the problem with copyright laws is that most people just don't understand what those laws contain, how they mess with the public perception of reality and why they need to be changed to fit reality. Everyone agrees that we should pay the artist, but when the details come out about stuff, people get angry and want copyright changed.
I would rather buy a phone, video game, book or movie from the people who made them, rather than the corporation who distributes them, because then I know my money is going to the people who made it.
Yes, the government could do with less, but then things get really bad.
Imagine, if you will, you're living on Food Stamps, it helps you live.
It also, shockingly enough, helps to keep the economy from becoming a death spiral where everyone loses their jobs.
See, if people who have food stamps goes out to buy food, then people who work at the store still get paid and have money, and those people can spend money into the economy, thus keeping the economy, which may be struggling, from going completely under long enough that when things turn around, people can be hired again.
Which means, of course, that the government can, once that happens, lower spending because they don't have to support as many people, and collect more taxes, thus paying off their deficits.
What works for people and businesses doesn't work for the government. The government can get away with things that you or I couldn't, simply because of the way the government works.
Your argument was actually debunked, about the government making do with less, just this morning on cracked.
If everyone pays, let's say 10% of their money to the government that they earn in a year, that seems fair, but...
If I make 10,000 dollars a year, I have to pay 1,000 dollars.
If you make 50,000 dollars a year, you have to pay 5,000.
Except that I have 9,000 dollars for the year and you have 45,000 dollars for the year.
the problem with flat taxes is that they don't work simply for the fact that the government has to have money to run. If you like your clean water, air standards, minimum wage, and other programs to help out when times are tough, then you need a more progressive tax structure in place to pay for that stuff.
Granted, i do agree that the IRS needs to be reformed, but I would start with a simpler tax code to remove loop holes for businesses and find ways to make the businesses pay their share of the taxes.
I would leave in exceptions for college loan payments, child support payments and other things that everyone can use equally, but get rid of the stuff that only the rich could use.
Yeah, I know "this is all an attack on the rich, are you jealous?!" the arguments.
This isn't about me being jealous, it's about getting the rich and powerful to do their part to help this country out.
Imagine everyone in the united states, rich, poor, middle class, powerful, all walking down an aisle in a store. There's something that the poor and middle class could really use (more roads or better schools for example), but they don't have the money to reach that goal, so they ask the rich and powerful, who are able to help reach that goal, to give them a hand. As of right now, the rich can go "no thanks" to some stuff and screw over the poor and middle class.
It's not about jealousy, it's about human decency to help out if you can.
The RIAA promised us that once cassettes were gone and CDs, which were cheaper to make, became the norm, the price of CDs, which were superior to cassettes, would drop from 17.99 a CD (cassettes were 14.99) down to probably somewhere around 14.99
What happened after cassettes were abolished?
CDs went from 17.99 to anywhere from 21.99 to, in most cases, 24.99.
Yeah, there's no way that they won't increase prices without used games.
hell, I bet that if used games disappeared tomorrow, it would be a month, at most, before games started to come out at 70 USD, and then later 80 USD and topping off at around 100 USD.
They're already that high in the EU and Australia after all.