Comments on: The Antidouchebaggitarian Manifesto

By: Tweets that mention The Antidouchebaggitarian Manifesto – gaijin.com -- Topsy.com

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 09:56:01 +0000

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bonnie Bertram and Paul Livingstone, jorm. jorm said: The Antidouchebaggitarian Manifesto: http://bit.ly/ddGBPn […]

By: Noid

Noid — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 09:37:05 +0000

What is the anti-douchebag party have to say about my gun closet?

Is the government allowed to tell me how many guns, what type of guns or how much ammunition I can own?

By: moonjets

moonjets — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:10:39 +0000

In reply to evilheff.

Income tax in the UK isn't flat: it's both more and less progressive than you say. 20% for up to £37,400, 40% over that. And the first £6475 untaxed. Also, VAT isn't a sales tax, precisely... But never mind. What you say about the greatness of the NHS is spot on.

By: moonjets

moonjets — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:03:21 +0000

To judge by your manifesto, you're not governmentally conservative at all: more socialist, really. But that's ok: more than ok. It's great.

By: shunaria

shunaria — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:04:56 +0000

Sounds good, but I have a problem with 1A - specifically that since we're still trying to disentangle church and state, the church really is at the mercy of the government. I believe that the church lost the right to control marriage right around the time when it was decided that divine mandate was a good reason to have someone rule a country.

Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a service provided by the government to its citizens. People are able to get non-religious marriages, which further reinforces the point that religious involvement is entirely optional.

If people want representatives of the sky fairy to bless their marriages, that's fine - but the fact that people traditionally have done so doesn't mean that they get to own the institution.

By: as43

as43 — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:33:53 +0000

yay for Tang!!

and thanks for a great post.

By: jorm

jorm — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:55:21 +0000

In reply to maeuschen.

Re: proposal?

Most of our "great works" have to do with medicine. The shuttle is actually really old technology - from the 70s and earlier.

We've had some wins but a lot of them are still in the "research science" mode or are considered too commonplace to be "epic".

By: jorm

jorm — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:52:15 +0000

In reply to evilheff.

Re: proposal?

The space program is covered under bullet point 2a, actually. Other things, like the Hoover Dam, are covered under the infrastructure point.

By: mkb_cbr

mkb_cbr — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:14:57 +0000

In reply to evilheff.

Re: proposal?

Innumeracy plays a role in this as well. It's easy to freak out about a project which costs N-million dollars, not realizing that the cost is small in the big picture.

By: mkb_cbr

mkb_cbr — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:12:52 +0000

In reply to evilheff.

Re: proposal?

Sorry that this sounds so hyperbolic, but space exploration has another important function-- the preservation of our species. One thing we know for certain is that eventually Earth will become uninhabitable. Maybe that will be tomorrow when we have a NEW-q-ler war or maybe it won't happen until the sun becomes a red dwarf in a couple billion years, but one way or another it will happen.

The ability to create self-sustaining, self-propagating colonies won't come quickly. Big projects like that will require generations of work. If we don't start until we need to, we'll be fucked. We must start early.

Also: space is cool.