There is really no way to know how things would have played out if Germany had had a two party rather than multi-party system. There is a line of argument that suggests that the Nazi Party would have had more trouble getting to a level of support high enough to get any power in a two party system. There are a lot of reasons to accept that argument. Of course there is an alternate line of argument that suggests that the Nazi Party would have been able to cannablize one of the major parties if there had been a two party system in place. There is really no way to know how electoral politics would have played out if the Weimar Republic had been a two party system instead of a multi-party system (although I favor the argument that says that it would have been harder for the Nazis to acquire sufficient power to overthrow democracy--harder, not impossible).
I don't know any non-kooks who want to completely ban fossil fuels. Most want either to say "no burning fossil fuel without a permit" and issue permits equal to a desired level of emissions, or implement a carbon tax tuned to reduce emissions to that level.
And this right there is the problem conservatives have with the idea. Because conservatives realize that those who get the permits will be those who are politically connected to the right people, while anyone who does manage to get permits had better be careful to support all the correct people and positions.
Except of course that Hitler never got more than 30 some percent of the vote (at least while there were actually other options to vote for). Hitler never "got the popular vote." Although he did get a larger share than anyone else. I would have to do a more in depth study to know the answer, but there is a significant chance that if 1930s Germany had had a two party system similar to that of the U.S. Hitler would not have won enough votes to pull off what he did.
Actually, he did not. Perhaps you need to work on reading comprehension. He said that they tend to fall into one of two groups, the first of which is the one you accuse him of putting all scientists into.
Perhaps you should do a little studying. "Freedom of the press" does not mean freedom of those in the business of selling news. It means freedom of the people to use printing presses to publish what they would like. The First Amendment does not give special protection to the news media. From the perspective of the Framers of the Constitution calling someone a "member of the press" would be like us calling someone a "member of the Internet".
Right, he overlooked the fact that it isn't "shoved down everybody's throat." Some people get to do the shoving, and they usually get exempted from having it shoved down their throat.
no, of course not. the MOTHER deserves to be punished for the crime she did not commit. right?
Well, I guess if you, like our President, consider giving birth a punishment. Of course that makes you wonder what he was punishing his wife for that he made her give birth twice. Or is it just that she is a masochist?
Actually, Google could do what they asked and just give a bare link back to the site in the listing. That is, the site appears in the search listing as www.deutschebag.com with no more information.
I did not follow your link, so I do not know if this was pointed out in it or not. In the 1960s, the per capita caloric intake of developing nations was around 300-600 calories a day. In the early 2000s that had risen so that the per capita caloric intake throughout the developing world was around 2500 calories a day. That means that there is not a "food crisis". That does not mean that there are not still hungry people in the world. It just means that we have the means to feed them, we just fail to do so.
What the hell is an expert in practical ethics, anyway?
Someone who tells people that it is ethical to do what they wanted to do anyway and that all of those antiquated rules society has developed over centuries that people would rather not follow are obsolete.
The problem is that we do not know whether or not the gene that predisposes someone to be an alcoholic also predisposes someone to have traits that we find extremely valuable.
The Republicans did not have to "push hard" to have districts restructured. Ohio lost seats in Congress after the last Census. That means that districts had to be eliminated (I don't remember how many and I'm too lazy to go look it up). The Republicans controlled the Ohio state legislature. That means they got to decide how to draw the new district lines. They chose to redraw the lines so as to pit Kucinich against a more moderate Democrat. That sucks if you are Kucinich, but it is the way redistricting has always worked. If the Democrats had controlled the legislature, they would have done it to some Republican.
Yeah, some people believe that parents should have the right to kill their children if those children are too much of a burden, so why should parents who consider their children too much of a burden be forced to allow them to live?
You are right that Obama submitted a budget last year. The Senate voted 97-0 to reject it. Are you suggesting that Obama could not get a single Democratic Senator to vote for a budget plan that he wanted passed?
Currently the federal government is spending around 25% of GDP. Historically, the federal government has never collected much above 19% of GDP in revenue. Tell me how you are going to cover that gap?
I don't know what the poster you are replying to was saying. I will say this. Historically, the federal government has never been able to collect more than right around 19% of GDP in taxes. Right now the federal government is spending about 25% of GDP. That means there is no way to balance the budget without cutting spending as a percentage of GDP.
No, there are two important numbers. They are; the percentage of GDP that the federal government has historically collected in taxes (it has been around 18-19% for most of the last 50 years), and the percentage of GDP that the federal government is spending (it is currently around 25%). If by comparing those two numbers you are unable to understand that the problem in this country is that the federal government spends too much money, not that it does not tax enough, there is no hope for you.
So, you believe, that if it was not for the NRA, a Constitutional Amendment overriding the Second Amendment would have been passed? I haven't even seen anybody propose such an Amendment. Or, do you believe that if it wasn't for the NRA, Congress and the Courts would be ignoring the Second Amendment? If the latter, what is the point of having a Constitution which limits the power of government?
As to "modern countries" changing their laws every couple of years, are you referring to Germany, which less than 75 years ago had a government which strove to exterminate everyone who was not of appropriate lineage? Or perhaps Japan, which at that same time attempted to enslave the rest of Asia? Or perhaps Sweden, which went along with Germany to avoid being invaded (and perhaps because they didn't think what Germany was doing was all that bad)?
There are only a handful of countries around the world that were even countries when the U.S. was founded, let alone still have the same form of government.
I suppose if the only portable devices you have are IOS devices than that is fine, but wouldn't it be nice if I would not have to have a separate cable for all of my IOS devices and another one for everything else?
That is not the point. The point is that many of the truly wealthy are like this guy (and he wasn't a "kid" when they sold the business, he was a college graduate who had been working for the family business for several years). They do not pay income taxes. Their father or grandfather may have, but they don't (or at least not on a significant part of the money that pays for their lifestyle). That is one of the reasons it is ridiculous when people use somebody like Warren Buffet to argue for higher income tax rates. Of course Warren Buffet is for higher income tax rates, it makes it harder for someone else to get as much money as he has and has no real impact on him.
Slashdot Mirror
There is really no way to know how things would have played out if Germany had had a two party rather than multi-party system. There is a line of argument that suggests that the Nazi Party would have had more trouble getting to a level of support high enough to get any power in a two party system. There are a lot of reasons to accept that argument. Of course there is an alternate line of argument that suggests that the Nazi Party would have been able to cannablize one of the major parties if there had been a two party system in place. There is really no way to know how electoral politics would have played out if the Weimar Republic had been a two party system instead of a multi-party system (although I favor the argument that says that it would have been harder for the Nazis to acquire sufficient power to overthrow democracy--harder, not impossible).
That's not the way it was intended to work.
You really believe that politicians and bureaucrats won't meddle in that market?
I don't know any non-kooks who want to completely ban fossil fuels. Most want either to say "no burning fossil fuel without a permit" and issue permits equal to a desired level of emissions, or implement a carbon tax tuned to reduce emissions to that level.
And this right there is the problem conservatives have with the idea. Because conservatives realize that those who get the permits will be those who are politically connected to the right people, while anyone who does manage to get permits had better be careful to support all the correct people and positions.
Except of course that Hitler never got more than 30 some percent of the vote (at least while there were actually other options to vote for). Hitler never "got the popular vote." Although he did get a larger share than anyone else. I would have to do a more in depth study to know the answer, but there is a significant chance that if 1930s Germany had had a two party system similar to that of the U.S. Hitler would not have won enough votes to pull off what he did.
Actually, he did not. Perhaps you need to work on reading comprehension. He said that they tend to fall into one of two groups, the first of which is the one you accuse him of putting all scientists into.
Perhaps you should do a little studying. "Freedom of the press" does not mean freedom of those in the business of selling news. It means freedom of the people to use printing presses to publish what they would like. The First Amendment does not give special protection to the news media. From the perspective of the Framers of the Constitution calling someone a "member of the press" would be like us calling someone a "member of the Internet".
Right, he overlooked the fact that it isn't "shoved down everybody's throat." Some people get to do the shoving, and they usually get exempted from having it shoved down their throat.
Ever heard of adoption?
no, of course not. the MOTHER deserves to be punished for the crime she did not commit. right?
Well, I guess if you, like our President, consider giving birth a punishment. Of course that makes you wonder what he was punishing his wife for that he made her give birth twice. Or is it just that she is a masochist?
Actually, Google could do what they asked and just give a bare link back to the site in the listing. That is, the site appears in the search listing as www.deutschebag.com with no more information.
Too late
I did not follow your link, so I do not know if this was pointed out in it or not. In the 1960s, the per capita caloric intake of developing nations was around 300-600 calories a day. In the early 2000s that had risen so that the per capita caloric intake throughout the developing world was around 2500 calories a day. That means that there is not a "food crisis". That does not mean that there are not still hungry people in the world. It just means that we have the means to feed them, we just fail to do so.
What the hell is an expert in practical ethics, anyway?
Someone who tells people that it is ethical to do what they wanted to do anyway and that all of those antiquated rules society has developed over centuries that people would rather not follow are obsolete.
The problem is that we do not know whether or not the gene that predisposes someone to be an alcoholic also predisposes someone to have traits that we find extremely valuable.
The Republicans did not have to "push hard" to have districts restructured. Ohio lost seats in Congress after the last Census. That means that districts had to be eliminated (I don't remember how many and I'm too lazy to go look it up). The Republicans controlled the Ohio state legislature. That means they got to decide how to draw the new district lines. They chose to redraw the lines so as to pit Kucinich against a more moderate Democrat. That sucks if you are Kucinich, but it is the way redistricting has always worked. If the Democrats had controlled the legislature, they would have done it to some Republican.
Yeah, some people believe that parents should have the right to kill their children if those children are too much of a burden, so why should parents who consider their children too much of a burden be forced to allow them to live?
You are right that Obama submitted a budget last year. The Senate voted 97-0 to reject it. Are you suggesting that Obama could not get a single Democratic Senator to vote for a budget plan that he wanted passed?
Currently the federal government is spending around 25% of GDP. Historically, the federal government has never collected much above 19% of GDP in revenue. Tell me how you are going to cover that gap?
I don't know what the poster you are replying to was saying. I will say this. Historically, the federal government has never been able to collect more than right around 19% of GDP in taxes. Right now the federal government is spending about 25% of GDP. That means there is no way to balance the budget without cutting spending as a percentage of GDP.
No, there are two important numbers. They are; the percentage of GDP that the federal government has historically collected in taxes (it has been around 18-19% for most of the last 50 years), and the percentage of GDP that the federal government is spending (it is currently around 25%). If by comparing those two numbers you are unable to understand that the problem in this country is that the federal government spends too much money, not that it does not tax enough, there is no hope for you.
So, you believe, that if it was not for the NRA, a Constitutional Amendment overriding the Second Amendment would have been passed? I haven't even seen anybody propose such an Amendment. Or, do you believe that if it wasn't for the NRA, Congress and the Courts would be ignoring the Second Amendment? If the latter, what is the point of having a Constitution which limits the power of government?
As to "modern countries" changing their laws every couple of years, are you referring to Germany, which less than 75 years ago had a government which strove to exterminate everyone who was not of appropriate lineage? Or perhaps Japan, which at that same time attempted to enslave the rest of Asia? Or perhaps Sweden, which went along with Germany to avoid being invaded (and perhaps because they didn't think what Germany was doing was all that bad)?
There are only a handful of countries around the world that were even countries when the U.S. was founded, let alone still have the same form of government.
I suppose if the only portable devices you have are IOS devices than that is fine, but wouldn't it be nice if I would not have to have a separate cable for all of my IOS devices and another one for everything else?
That is not the point. The point is that many of the truly wealthy are like this guy (and he wasn't a "kid" when they sold the business, he was a college graduate who had been working for the family business for several years). They do not pay income taxes. Their father or grandfather may have, but they don't (or at least not on a significant part of the money that pays for their lifestyle). That is one of the reasons it is ridiculous when people use somebody like Warren Buffet to argue for higher income tax rates. Of course Warren Buffet is for higher income tax rates, it makes it harder for someone else to get as much money as he has and has no real impact on him.
And they wonder why people think that liberals don't have a sense of humor.