That mentality has always bothered me. You see it so often in the movie industry where they'll focus so much of the financials on the visual aspects like the CGI or the actors, and then expect a huge return.
People can smell that shit, and they don't like being tossed a sugar-frosted piece of poo.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POLL: Americans' Confidence in Congress Falls to Lowest on Record
"making everyone happy all of the time, that is impossible, they do serve the interests of the people, they just do not serve the interest of the PERSON."
Yes it is, but you're assuming that is what people want.
I agree, politicians are not there to support the interest of one person, but you're forgetting there are plenty of politicians who are only looking out for themselves and their interests instead of the people they represent.
"What if you don't have the same interests as the person who lives next door to you, who out of you two gets to have their interest served and who does not, who decides that ?"
Then I would start a special interest group of people with like minded values and we'd fund politicians to voice our interests. I'm not supportive of a singular voice of concern, but when you have a poll of multiple people displaying concern, you can't write it off as people expecting too much from politicians who are put into office to represent them.
"If you all have THE SAME interests (impossible) then it would be possible to serve YOUR interests, but if (like in the real world) there are as many 'interests" as there are people, that could change from day to day, how do you expect them all to be 'served'??"
According to your logic then, if a number of people voice their concern over say having clean drinking water, then they're being unrealistic?
"It's also very egotistic and self-serving, you are saying if you do not get exactly what you want you get upset, and shows you have no care for what other people want, and no willingness to reach a fair compromise where (like the real world) you get some things you like and accept some things you don't. Because when you don't like is probably the thing someone else does like, and when you do like is probably what someone else (or many else) don't like.
Really? is this how you justify what the NSA is doing? So it's egotistical for the public to be concerned about their privacy from the government?
And no, I don't get it because your logic matches your asinine analogies.
"It seems you have a bit of a problem with the constitution from time to time."
How so? From what I've seen, the issues being brought up relate to how the constitution is being used. Though, you seem bent on appealing to a broken system of law, instead of contemplating ways in which it can be improved.
"I guess you aren't comfortable with the idea that the amendments cut both ways."
You're avoiding the question as to whether or no tit's a good idea they can cut both ways.
"The CNN Piers Morgan show had some very interesting information on all of this, and pretty much everyone agreed that while the Prism deal may appear on the surface to be a bit invasive, there really isn't anything there that violates anyone's rights, and certainly nothing actionable."
This is another issue. you have a larger crowd saying that PRISM is invasive and then you have a few people saying it isn't. Who's more in the right?
By the way, I wouldn't take my opinions from a show run by a former tabloid editor.
"The problem with just telling kids "murder is bad" is that is abstract."
It's more effective to tell a child why something is wrong and help him understand it then to just tell him it's wrong.
I see that issue happen all the time with friends of mine who have kids. They just wag the finger and say "Stop doing that" instead of taking the time to sit down and help the child understand why it's a bad thing or the effects it can have on someone else.
The recording companies have built themselves an artificial market that cannot maintain their expected bottom line.
They'll continue taking from the artists even when things like digital music reduce overhead. You remember when they tried to reduce royalty rates (http://gizmodo.com/352762/riaa-wants-to-cut-artist-royalties-to-9-apple-wants-them-at-4-artists-jus t-want-to-eat)? Or how about when multiple artists sue their record labels for unfair royalties (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/james-taylor-sues-warner-brothers-over-royalties-20120917)?
I guess you could say they're not screwing them over, but rather bending them over and sodomizing them for every last scent to maintain their profit.