In my opinion he really wanted to try to do these things, but was just too ignorant to realize he couldn't.
Well you're allowed to that opinion. However, I ask you - given the extremely radical people he surrounded himself with his entire life (you know who I'm talking about because it's been in the news), after looking at their agenda think about it and then do you still feel the same way about him?
As for your hypothetical question - it is still money coming out of the pockets of people who earned it and being redistributed to those who did not earn it. Making the theft more efficient doesn't make it any less theft. I'm not arguing against giving money or food to the poor / those who need it - however, it's not giving when the government does it. I fully advocate charity and helping those around you - of your own free will. Once the government starts forcefully taking your money from you to give to others (even if they do need it), it becomes wrong.
Taking money from hardworking people and giving it to non-hardworking people is NOT a noble intention. Many of his claims (such as transparency, fiscal responsibility, no lobbyists) were made to get those who wouldn't vote for him to support him during the election - then he showed that he never cared about any of that and it was just words to get elected.
Bullshit. Sorry, but all you had to do was either 1) turn on the news or 2) go vote and you could hear countless blacks (many of whom openly acknowledged that they knew nothing about what was going on in the election) talk about how they'd never voted before in their lives, but they registered to vote just for Obama. Now, seeing as how Obama's policies are pretty much the standard DNC views, what made him so different that millions of blacks would sign up to vote after going decades without voting? Oh, that's right. His skin color.
I'm in favor of it because NASA, like all government organizations, pissed through money like you can't believe. Add on top of that the epic failures NASA has had in the last decade of "Oops, we miscalculated and now $X billion is down the drain", and even though I'm all for space exploration, it's hard to support NASA.
Unless they are your children, no one is responsible for anyone else. If someone is nice enough to give you help (whether it's help in a physical emergency or a monetary emergency), then be thankful and that's very nice of them. However, they were under no obligation to do it.
Just because people do not choose what you want them to, it doesn't give you the right to take away their right to make their own decisions. That's part of having freedom to make choices - sometimes people make bad choices or just choices that are different than yours, and it's their right to make those choices.
Problem is, a lot of people aren't very decent at all, so they pass a law that tries to ensure that if your life is ever in danger, people (whether motivated by compassion or law) won't just turn a blind eye and leave you to your own devices.
This law is about power. Just like every other right that's been taken away, the more small things that they take away (and can come up with the typical tyrannical "greater good" bullshit excuse for taking away your rights) means that you'll be more willing to accept the next right taken away. Bravo, you've demonstrated perfectly that their tactic works and that you're just fine and dandy with losing freedoms.
If you think you can legislate people into caring more about total strangers than themselves, you're sadly mistaken. That is why collectivism doesn't work because those behind it do not understand human behavior. If everyone thought like you do or was capable of being forced to think like you want them to, then sure, communism would work fine because you could brainwash people into having no personal desires. However, that's not how human beings work.
I'm more in the I don't care what you do as long as everyone's consenting camp.
Well if EVERYONE in society must be consenting, all you need is one person with a lot of power to make them consent.......hmm, where have we seen such societies before...let me think.....*thinks of Cuba, 1930's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Venezuela, China, USSR, etc*
I'm saying that you cannot make it illegal for someone to not help when the police (the supposed public guardians) are not legally required to do such a thing.
I've suggested many times splitting the US in half - one side follow libertarianism (what the country was founded on), and the other side follows your collectivist views. Then after say 30 years, see how many people want to stay on each side.
Amusingly, it's always been the people in your camp who cry "That's not fair!" because you know it's the hardworking and responsible "evil" capitalists that make it possible for leeches like you to have your collectivist societies, paid for by their work and sweat.
I never said you advocated murder, rape or theft. I said that there are people who do find them acceptable, and that just because THEY think it's ok, doesn't mean it IS ok. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing!
Totalitarianism is about a lack of freedom and is found in may countries to this day - your "Godwin" law as usual translates to "I don't have an actual reason, other than my own narcissistic desires, for why I'm against freedom, so I'm going to point over there and shout "GODWIN!!" and when you look I'm going to run away from the argument".
Just because you agree with them, it doesn't make their positions valid. People are fully entitled to an opinion, yes, but when it comes to putting ideas into practice, not all of them are valid. And yes, you being opposed to freedom and thinking that people shouldn't have the right to make their own choices and run their own lives does give me the right to question your character.
Ah yes, the typical lies slandering freedom. Nowhere in libertarianism does it say that you can't have regulations for safety or to prevent abuses, and it certainly doesn't say that you can't have standards for medical professionals.
But then again, you know that. You just hate freedom and want to force everyone to act the way that you want them to. That's what always amuses me - the liberals like you claim to be so tolerant, but you're only tolerant as long as people agree with you.
That's because modern conservatism and modern liberalism are very similar - they support similar policies and similar ways of achieving their goals, it's jut that they have different morals that they want to force on people. That's why so many people in the US are looking for real conservatives AKA classic liberals.
There are all sorts of political philosophies which are perfectly accepted in modern civilized countries which run contrary to your position.
Yes, and there are those who think it's ok to murder, rape, and steal as they please - that's contrary to my position, but that doesn't make it a valid point of view. Totalitarianism is never a valid point of view, no matter how many people may support it.
If you cause someone harm, then it is wrong. However, failing to prevent / stop harm is another issue. Or are you unaware that even police are not legally responsible to stop / prevent crime, only to find and arrest those who commit crime?
So not caring about a stranger should be a crime? If I saw a stranger in need of help, I'd probably help, or at minimum call for help. However, the fact that you think I should be arrested just because I don't share your opinions definitely explains why we have so many politicians in office who think it's ok to try to control every aspect of people's lives.
I know, people like you think that free will is a terrible thing, but free will is the most basic of human rights.
Uhm, what do you think governments are for then? Forcing individuals into doing things that should not be done?
Governments aren't supposed to be forcing citizens to do anything beyond paying taxes for the bare necessities (military, roads, emergency services, etc). The fact that you think governments should be forcing people to do things does not speak well of your character.
Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.
And that's the crux of the matter. The fact that someone SHOULD do something does not mean that anyone (not even the government) has the right to FORCE them to do something.
What on Earth made you think that/.'ers wouldn't have an irrational reaction to the idea of homeschooling?
Honestly? I would've assumed most slashdotters would be FOR home schooling given how horrible most public schools are and how they actively discourage creativity and learning at a faster pace than Johnny Footballplayer. I guess the average slashdotters blind hatred of religion (and I'm saying based off the metric ton of "Religion is a form of schizophrenia" and "only psycho religious people brainwashing their kids to be racists home school" posts in this thread) gets in the way of remember just how bad public schools are. I know if I ever have kids, if it's feasible, they'll be home schooled, at least up until high school. That way I can make sure that they know more going into high school than the typical kid does after they graduate high school.
If you didn't notice, Bush was hardly a conservative - he only had that label because he was christian and had an R after his name, but a lot of his policies fit perfectly with the Democrats. Though the Democrats and Republicans are very hard to distinguish these days (with a few exceptions on both sides).
Well if it's entertainment (software, music, movies) the corporations will just lie and say they lost sales to pirates and ignore that a large percentage of their customers told them flat out why they were refusing to buy it.
Given how locked down it is, yes, that's the exact purpose of the iPad - it's for websurfing, IM, email, and multimedia (watching movies, listening to music, and reading books), but it does have the ability (with iWork for the iPad) to allow you to do some general computing tasks. Though I'm curious if you have to sync with iTunes to get your finished documents off the iPad.... That would be stupid if they didn't at least allow you to email it or send it over bluetooth.
I like the idea of the iPad and I like the price (I was surprised that it started so low, given Apple's history of overpricing everything, I honestly expected the bottom of the line to be close to $1,000), but I don't think it'll be very functional as anything other than an entertainment device until Apple calms the fuck down and lets people run whatever they want. Maybe if they allowed a separate iPad-only section to the App Store where there were no restrictions other than a security check to make sure that the software wasn't malicious?
And if you actually bothered to read books on, oh I don't know, history, economics, and political philosophy, you'd realize that he's extremely far left. However, many people like you think that as long as they're not as bad as Stalin, that they're "moderate".
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion he really wanted to try to do these things, but was just too ignorant to realize he couldn't.
Well you're allowed to that opinion. However, I ask you - given the extremely radical people he surrounded himself with his entire life (you know who I'm talking about because it's been in the news), after looking at their agenda think about it and then do you still feel the same way about him?
As for your hypothetical question - it is still money coming out of the pockets of people who earned it and being redistributed to those who did not earn it. Making the theft more efficient doesn't make it any less theft. I'm not arguing against giving money or food to the poor / those who need it - however, it's not giving when the government does it. I fully advocate charity and helping those around you - of your own free will. Once the government starts forcefully taking your money from you to give to others (even if they do need it), it becomes wrong.
Taking money from hardworking people and giving it to non-hardworking people is NOT a noble intention. Many of his claims (such as transparency, fiscal responsibility, no lobbyists) were made to get those who wouldn't vote for him to support him during the election - then he showed that he never cared about any of that and it was just words to get elected.
Bullshit. Sorry, but all you had to do was either 1) turn on the news or 2) go vote and you could hear countless blacks (many of whom openly acknowledged that they knew nothing about what was going on in the election) talk about how they'd never voted before in their lives, but they registered to vote just for Obama. Now, seeing as how Obama's policies are pretty much the standard DNC views, what made him so different that millions of blacks would sign up to vote after going decades without voting? Oh, that's right. His skin color.
I'm in favor of it because NASA, like all government organizations, pissed through money like you can't believe. Add on top of that the epic failures NASA has had in the last decade of "Oops, we miscalculated and now $X billion is down the drain", and even though I'm all for space exploration, it's hard to support NASA.
Unless they are your children, no one is responsible for anyone else. If someone is nice enough to give you help (whether it's help in a physical emergency or a monetary emergency), then be thankful and that's very nice of them. However, they were under no obligation to do it.
Just because people do not choose what you want them to, it doesn't give you the right to take away their right to make their own decisions. That's part of having freedom to make choices - sometimes people make bad choices or just choices that are different than yours, and it's their right to make those choices.
Problem is, a lot of people aren't very decent at all, so they pass a law that tries to ensure that if your life is ever in danger, people (whether motivated by compassion or law) won't just turn a blind eye and leave you to your own devices.
This law is about power. Just like every other right that's been taken away, the more small things that they take away (and can come up with the typical tyrannical "greater good" bullshit excuse for taking away your rights) means that you'll be more willing to accept the next right taken away. Bravo, you've demonstrated perfectly that their tactic works and that you're just fine and dandy with losing freedoms.
If you think you can legislate people into caring more about total strangers than themselves, you're sadly mistaken. That is why collectivism doesn't work because those behind it do not understand human behavior. If everyone thought like you do or was capable of being forced to think like you want them to, then sure, communism would work fine because you could brainwash people into having no personal desires. However, that's not how human beings work.
I'm more in the I don't care what you do as long as everyone's consenting camp.
Well if EVERYONE in society must be consenting, all you need is one person with a lot of power to make them consent.......hmm, where have we seen such societies before...let me think.....*thinks of Cuba, 1930's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Venezuela, China, USSR, etc*
I'm saying that you cannot make it illegal for someone to not help when the police (the supposed public guardians) are not legally required to do such a thing.
I've suggested many times splitting the US in half - one side follow libertarianism (what the country was founded on), and the other side follows your collectivist views. Then after say 30 years, see how many people want to stay on each side.
Amusingly, it's always been the people in your camp who cry "That's not fair!" because you know it's the hardworking and responsible "evil" capitalists that make it possible for leeches like you to have your collectivist societies, paid for by their work and sweat.
I never said you advocated murder, rape or theft. I said that there are people who do find them acceptable, and that just because THEY think it's ok, doesn't mean it IS ok. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing!
Totalitarianism is about a lack of freedom and is found in may countries to this day - your "Godwin" law as usual translates to "I don't have an actual reason, other than my own narcissistic desires, for why I'm against freedom, so I'm going to point over there and shout "GODWIN!!" and when you look I'm going to run away from the argument".
Just because you agree with them, it doesn't make their positions valid. People are fully entitled to an opinion, yes, but when it comes to putting ideas into practice, not all of them are valid. And yes, you being opposed to freedom and thinking that people shouldn't have the right to make their own choices and run their own lives does give me the right to question your character.
Ah yes, the typical lies slandering freedom. Nowhere in libertarianism does it say that you can't have regulations for safety or to prevent abuses, and it certainly doesn't say that you can't have standards for medical professionals.
But then again, you know that. You just hate freedom and want to force everyone to act the way that you want them to. That's what always amuses me - the liberals like you claim to be so tolerant, but you're only tolerant as long as people agree with you.
That's because modern conservatism and modern liberalism are very similar - they support similar policies and similar ways of achieving their goals, it's jut that they have different morals that they want to force on people. That's why so many people in the US are looking for real conservatives AKA classic liberals.
There are all sorts of political philosophies which are perfectly accepted in modern civilized countries which run contrary to your position.
Yes, and there are those who think it's ok to murder, rape, and steal as they please - that's contrary to my position, but that doesn't make it a valid point of view. Totalitarianism is never a valid point of view, no matter how many people may support it.
If you cause someone harm, then it is wrong. However, failing to prevent / stop harm is another issue. Or are you unaware that even police are not legally responsible to stop / prevent crime, only to find and arrest those who commit crime?
So not caring about a stranger should be a crime? If I saw a stranger in need of help, I'd probably help, or at minimum call for help. However, the fact that you think I should be arrested just because I don't share your opinions definitely explains why we have so many politicians in office who think it's ok to try to control every aspect of people's lives.
I know, people like you think that free will is a terrible thing, but free will is the most basic of human rights.
Uhm, what do you think governments are for then? Forcing individuals into doing things that should not be done?
Governments aren't supposed to be forcing citizens to do anything beyond paying taxes for the bare necessities (military, roads, emergency services, etc). The fact that you think governments should be forcing people to do things does not speak well of your character.
Not everybody is a hero, but everyone SHOULD be a responsible citizen.
And that's the crux of the matter. The fact that someone SHOULD do something does not mean that anyone (not even the government) has the right to FORCE them to do something.
What on Earth made you think that /.'ers wouldn't have an irrational reaction to the idea of homeschooling?
Honestly? I would've assumed most slashdotters would be FOR home schooling given how horrible most public schools are and how they actively discourage creativity and learning at a faster pace than Johnny Footballplayer. I guess the average slashdotters blind hatred of religion (and I'm saying based off the metric ton of "Religion is a form of schizophrenia" and "only psycho religious people brainwashing their kids to be racists home school" posts in this thread) gets in the way of remember just how bad public schools are. I know if I ever have kids, if it's feasible, they'll be home schooled, at least up until high school. That way I can make sure that they know more going into high school than the typical kid does after they graduate high school.
Once the government starts taking from one person to give to another, that is socialist, even if it doesn't run any part of the economy.
If you didn't notice, Bush was hardly a conservative - he only had that label because he was christian and had an R after his name, but a lot of his policies fit perfectly with the Democrats. Though the Democrats and Republicans are very hard to distinguish these days (with a few exceptions on both sides).
Which is what I support, I was merely pointing out that substituting one load of crap for another isn't a good solution.
As opposed to the modern myths preached in schools?
Well if it's entertainment (software, music, movies) the corporations will just lie and say they lost sales to pirates and ignore that a large percentage of their customers told them flat out why they were refusing to buy it.
Given how locked down it is, yes, that's the exact purpose of the iPad - it's for websurfing, IM, email, and multimedia (watching movies, listening to music, and reading books), but it does have the ability (with iWork for the iPad) to allow you to do some general computing tasks. Though I'm curious if you have to sync with iTunes to get your finished documents off the iPad.... That would be stupid if they didn't at least allow you to email it or send it over bluetooth.
I like the idea of the iPad and I like the price (I was surprised that it started so low, given Apple's history of overpricing everything, I honestly expected the bottom of the line to be close to $1,000), but I don't think it'll be very functional as anything other than an entertainment device until Apple calms the fuck down and lets people run whatever they want. Maybe if they allowed a separate iPad-only section to the App Store where there were no restrictions other than a security check to make sure that the software wasn't malicious?
And if you actually bothered to read books on, oh I don't know, history, economics, and political philosophy, you'd realize that he's extremely far left. However, many people like you think that as long as they're not as bad as Stalin, that they're "moderate".