Conservatives have taken the blame game to heart and made it their own.
Judging from this sentence, they are obviously not the only ones.
Seriously, in the course of writing/proofreading this rant (which I don't necessarily disagree with), you never, even once, thought, "man, am I trippin' or do I sound just like the people I'm criticizing?"
FWIW, conservatives (or rather, the fringe political group you've chosen to stick that label on, accuracy notwithstanding) aren't really all that different from the other extremist camp on the opposite end of the spectrum, when you get down to brass tacks - I could cite a number of quotes from Democrats that sound just as insane and offensive as the Peter King statement you've posted. Pretty much anything Bloomberg says, for example.
...using, developing, producing, buying, selling weapons and learn to be friends with others instead of trying to dominate. Until that happens, they will be hated by others and receive terror up their asses and keep being the scared cowards they are today.
Problem is: there is no other world force able to control that this happens without destroying the US. If they gave up all this, they will be attacked by all those people, groups, nations who were attacked by them. It will take generations to overcome this.
We could, at least, tone it down a bit. For example, right now the US spends more on it's military budget than the next 26 countries combined. I don't think it's going to destroy us if we cut that down to, say, spending more than the next 15 countries combined.
Or maybe we could just stop blowing up civilians with drone strikes, then posthumously labeling them 'enemy combatants' so the American media can sugar-coat the murders.
1. A declaration that Allah is the one true god, and Mohammed is his prophet.
2. Praying 5 times a day.
3. Fasting during Ramadan.
4. Give a percentage of your income to the poor.
5. Try to get to Mecca at least once in your life.
Actually, Christianity mirrors some of those (1 - First commandment/belief in Jesus as Son of God, 3 - Catholics fast during Lent and certain feast days, 4 - Tithing)
Tithing has nothing to do with helping the poor - tithing is supposed to be how the church pays its bills. Equating the two seems like a cheap cop-out, a weak excuse to not assist the poor and infirm by declaring, 'but I gave my 10% to the church, fuck the homeless guy on the corner!'
Personally, I feel that #4 in that list matches up more with the whole, "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" aspect of the faith.
*My apologies to Catholics, who may be taught that the Pope is infallible in a certain, limited context. I'm a Protestant and we think the Pope is just a very expert theologian in a funny hat.
Per Catholic dogma, certain documents the Pope drafts are to be considered holy edicts from God, and are thus to be held as infallible.
The Pope himself is understood to be a man, and therefore just as fault-ridden as the rest of humanity. The Quitter Pope (Benedict XVI) is a great example.
Source: Raised as a Catholic, plus I find religion in general to be fascinating.
We aren't playing by the rules any more. We're _thinking_ about how to eradicate disease. In one generation we can come up with a plan, execute it, and see if it worked, whereas evolution takes many generations for each phase.
There are no rules. The game is called "survival of the fittest", and that really is it.
Came to give this exact same response, thanks for beating me to it.
Disease control is just like security - every time someone builds a better lock, someone else comes along and builds a better lockpick. Only in this case, "someone else" is the entire universe.
In the lab, they could study the newfound viruses to see which are most likely to jump to humans and then prepare vaccines or drugs, he says. 'It would be the beginning of the end for pandemics.'
No, it would just be yet another volley in the endless war of attrition that is the evolution of species... but I like your optimism.
I had a professor that while speaking with anyone never makes eye contact, looking to a corner of the ceiling... I cannot describe how disturbing that was.
Having grown up very close to a deaf person, I've developed the tendency to stare at people's mouths when they speak.
Coincidentally, just the other day I was watching Aziz Ansari's stand-up special, Deliciously Dangerous, in which the comedian covers the topic quite succinctly:
Yes, because I want to buy a 1 pound paper wrapper for my ebook. By the time the publishing industry figures out how to adapt to technology it will be too late.
Surely the logical fallacy of, "I'm a consumer, and thus every consumer on the planet is just like me, and thus if I have no need for a product or service than no such need exists" is already named?
When you decide to use an ad-hominem attack rather than contibute usefully to the debate, then you have demostrated your own worth in this conversation.
Yea, except he didn't do that - previous AC pointed out that if the Constitution allowed for itself to have it's meaning changed at a whim, there wouldn't be any point in the document existing to begin with.
And he's right about that; the founders made the Amendment process 1.5 bitches for a damn good reason.
Where did they get the frequency allocation? If it was here in the USA, all available channels would have been put out for bid by the FCC and snapped up by the incumbents. Running a system on "their" channels would be frowned upon.
Hypothetical question: If everyone in the US came together and built such a system, would there be any way to stop us? Short of putting the entire population in jail, anyway.
Pardon me, but there's an investigator from Scotland Yard at the door asking for you - he would like to ask a few questions regarding the disappearance of your sense of humor...
Remember that the NSA is a tax-founded government agency, thus it's much more likely to assume that indeed everyone in America (I take it that you mean the United States version of America?) support what they do. At least most people voted for it, considering both parties are equally eager to keep NSA running.
You don't honestly believe that Americans have granular control over what our tax dollars are spent on, do you?
We need a carbon tax just to speed the transition to less less-polluting energy sources; if we instead use that money to repair thousands of miles of coastline and keep burning fossil fuel, we solve nothing.
Problem is, under any of the currenlty-being-considered carbon tax proposals, megalithic corporations can just bribe the government into letting them pollute as much as they want, and the money from the bribes goes into the general fund, not any special 'fix the shit they break' trust.
In short, I don't disagree with the concept, I just don't trust the oligarchs to do it right and not fuck the world over for their own, personal profit.
Problems should be solved because they need to be solved; equally, elected officials should do what's best for the people who elected them, not whichever industry organization gives them the biggest kickback.
To that end, why should, say, Missouri politicians give a rat's arse about coastal flooding? Hell, if the sea level rises enough it could very well be to our advantage; ocean-front property in Branson would bring in some serious bucks:)
(in case you were wondering, yes, I am being half-assed satirical.)
Oh, and government shouldn't try to make a 30mpg car hurt your pocketbook more than a 50mpg car...that's discriminatory in the wrong way. Someone who owns a 50mpg car with a 50mi/day commute is more of a problem than someone with a 30mpg car who commutes 15mi/day. Tax fuel consumption, not fuel efficiency.
You're looking at it the wrong way; punishment is a piss-poor method of encouraging changes in behavior, especially when compared to a reward system.
How about this: Instead of punishing people (specifically, poor people, since they're the one's who are least likely to be able to afford a new, cleaner-running vehicle, and craftsmen, for whom inefficient trucks and vans are tools of the trade) for not acting the way you like, we try rewarding those that do? Don't fine someone because their car "only" gets 30 MPG, but instead reward the ones who get the 50 MPG car, perhaps with a tax rebate.
my uncle and one of my best friends are both lifetime OTR drivers, and without guys like that our economy would grind to a standstill.
Unless, of course, we developed skateboard-esque carriers for shipping containers which could drive themselves around, in which case we wouldn't need 'em.
Yea, I was talking about today, right now.
Personally, I can't wait until someone comes up with a delivery robot that can negotiate stairs and read a damn address, unlike the UPS guy whose route includes my neighborhood...
Finally, I wanted to state for the record that I hold no ill will towards those who drive for a living - my uncle and one of my best friends are both lifetime OTR drivers, and without guys like that our economy would grind to a standstill.
Ah yes, now the reason for your anger/fear is crystal clear. Thanks for that.
How is asking legitimate questions about potential social issues an example of anger/fear?
Look, I get it - someone (me) questioned one of your sacred cattle, and it pisses you off - that's pretty much the basis of most human conflict. The proper response, IMO, is to get over your emotional reaction and look at the situation logically, in order to derive a reasonable conclusion.
Attacking me for asking questions does a disservice to us both, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
They're written in all CAPS when you're implying screaming.
Which may be appropriate when your ASS is on FIRE!!!
Conservatives have taken the blame game to heart and made it their own.
Judging from this sentence, they are obviously not the only ones.
Seriously, in the course of writing/proofreading this rant (which I don't necessarily disagree with), you never, even once, thought, "man, am I trippin' or do I sound just like the people I'm criticizing?"
FWIW, conservatives (or rather, the fringe political group you've chosen to stick that label on, accuracy notwithstanding) aren't really all that different from the other extremist camp on the opposite end of the spectrum, when you get down to brass tacks - I could cite a number of quotes from Democrats that sound just as insane and offensive as the Peter King statement you've posted. Pretty much anything Bloomberg says, for example.
...using, developing, producing, buying, selling weapons and learn to be friends with others instead of trying to dominate. Until that happens, they will be hated by others and receive terror up their asses and keep being the scared cowards they are today.
Problem is: there is no other world force able to control that this happens without destroying the US. If they gave up all this, they will be attacked by all those people, groups, nations who were attacked by them. It will take generations to overcome this.
We could, at least, tone it down a bit. For example, right now the US spends more on it's military budget than the next 26 countries combined. I don't think it's going to destroy us if we cut that down to, say, spending more than the next 15 countries combined.
Or maybe we could just stop blowing up civilians with drone strikes, then posthumously labeling them 'enemy combatants' so the American media can sugar-coat the murders.
Just a couple thoughts.
1. A declaration that Allah is the one true god, and Mohammed is his prophet.
2. Praying 5 times a day.
3. Fasting during Ramadan.
4. Give a percentage of your income to the poor.
5. Try to get to Mecca at least once in your life.
Actually, Christianity mirrors some of those (1 - First commandment/belief in Jesus as Son of God, 3 - Catholics fast during Lent and certain feast days, 4 - Tithing)
Tithing has nothing to do with helping the poor - tithing is supposed to be how the church pays its bills. Equating the two seems like a cheap cop-out, a weak excuse to not assist the poor and infirm by declaring, 'but I gave my 10% to the church, fuck the homeless guy on the corner!'
Personally, I feel that #4 in that list matches up more with the whole, "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" aspect of the faith.
*My apologies to Catholics, who may be taught that the Pope is infallible in a certain, limited context. I'm a Protestant and we think the Pope is just a very expert theologian in a funny hat.
Per Catholic dogma, certain documents the Pope drafts are to be considered holy edicts from God, and are thus to be held as infallible.
The Pope himself is understood to be a man, and therefore just as fault-ridden as the rest of humanity. The Quitter Pope (Benedict XVI) is a great example.
Source: Raised as a Catholic, plus I find religion in general to be fascinating.
There are no rules. The game is called "survival of the fittest", and that really is it.
Came to give this exact same response, thanks for beating me to it.
Disease control is just like security - every time someone builds a better lock, someone else comes along and builds a better lockpick. Only in this case, "someone else" is the entire universe.
In the lab, they could study the newfound viruses to see which are most likely to jump to humans and then prepare vaccines or drugs, he says. 'It would be the beginning of the end for pandemics.'
No, it would just be yet another volley in the endless war of attrition that is the evolution of species... but I like your optimism.
I had a professor that while speaking with anyone never makes eye contact, looking to a corner of the ceiling... I cannot describe how disturbing that was.
Having grown up very close to a deaf person, I've developed the tendency to stare at people's mouths when they speak.
You want disturbing? Try learning to lip read.
I have an aversion to maintaining eye contact with people I don't completely trust, you insensitive clod!
Even if it is fake.
Coincidentally, just the other day I was watching Aziz Ansari's stand-up special, Deliciously Dangerous, in which the comedian covers the topic quite succinctly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIXl1e0d5QI
Yes, because I want to buy a 1 pound paper wrapper for my ebook. By the time the publishing industry figures out how to adapt to technology it will be too late.
Surely the logical fallacy of, "I'm a consumer, and thus every consumer on the planet is just like me, and thus if I have no need for a product or service than no such need exists" is already named?
When you decide to use an ad-hominem attack rather than contibute usefully to the debate, then you have demostrated your own worth in this conversation.
Yea, except he didn't do that - previous AC pointed out that if the Constitution allowed for itself to have it's meaning changed at a whim, there wouldn't be any point in the document existing to begin with.
And he's right about that; the founders made the Amendment process 1.5 bitches for a damn good reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team
"Wants to" is, at this point, a foregone conclusion.
Where did they get the frequency allocation? If it was here in the USA, all available channels would have been put out for bid by the FCC and snapped up by the incumbents. Running a system on "their" channels would be frowned upon.
Hypothetical question: If everyone in the US came together and built such a system, would there be any way to stop us? Short of putting the entire population in jail, anyway.
Pardon me, but there's an investigator from Scotland Yard at the door asking for you - he would like to ask a few questions regarding the disappearance of your sense of humor...
Remember that the NSA is a tax-founded government agency, thus it's much more likely to assume that indeed everyone in America (I take it that you mean the United States version of America?) support what they do. At least most people voted for it, considering both parties are equally eager to keep NSA running.
You don't honestly believe that Americans have granular control over what our tax dollars are spent on, do you?
Why move? Build foot bridges to connect the buildings. A Venice-style corporate campus sounds awesome.
Sure, until it starts to sink into the festering cesspool surrounding it.
So, you know - not much different than current corporate culture.
We need a carbon tax just to speed the transition to less less-polluting energy sources; if we instead use that money to repair thousands of miles of coastline and keep burning fossil fuel, we solve nothing.
Problem is, under any of the currenlty-being-considered carbon tax proposals, megalithic corporations can just bribe the government into letting them pollute as much as they want, and the money from the bribes goes into the general fund, not any special 'fix the shit they break' trust.
In short, I don't disagree with the concept, I just don't trust the oligarchs to do it right and not fuck the world over for their own, personal profit.
Problems should be solved because they need to be solved; equally, elected officials should do what's best for the people who elected them, not whichever industry organization gives them the biggest kickback.
To that end, why should, say, Missouri politicians give a rat's arse about coastal flooding? Hell, if the sea level rises enough it could very well be to our advantage; ocean-front property in Branson would bring in some serious bucks :)
(in case you were wondering, yes, I am being half-assed satirical.)
Never heard it put that way before, but yea, pretty much.
Oh, and government shouldn't try to make a 30mpg car hurt your pocketbook more than a 50mpg car...that's discriminatory in the wrong way. Someone who owns a 50mpg car with a 50mi/day commute is more of a problem than someone with a 30mpg car who commutes 15mi/day. Tax fuel consumption, not fuel efficiency.
You're looking at it the wrong way; punishment is a piss-poor method of encouraging changes in behavior, especially when compared to a reward system.
How about this: Instead of punishing people (specifically, poor people, since they're the one's who are least likely to be able to afford a new, cleaner-running vehicle, and craftsmen, for whom inefficient trucks and vans are tools of the trade) for not acting the way you like, we try rewarding those that do? Don't fine someone because their car "only" gets 30 MPG, but instead reward the ones who get the 50 MPG car, perhaps with a tax rebate.
Careful rubbing those two brain cells together, if it were to start a fire I fear it would be a complete loss.
my uncle and one of my best friends are both lifetime OTR drivers, and without guys like that our economy would grind to a standstill.
Unless, of course, we developed skateboard-esque carriers for shipping containers which could drive themselves around, in which case we wouldn't need 'em.
Yea, I was talking about today, right now.
Personally, I can't wait until someone comes up with a delivery robot that can negotiate stairs and read a damn address, unlike the UPS guy whose route includes my neighborhood...
Finally, I wanted to state for the record that I hold no ill will towards those who drive for a living - my uncle and one of my best friends are both lifetime OTR drivers, and without guys like that our economy would grind to a standstill.
Ah yes, now the reason for your anger/fear is crystal clear. Thanks for that.
How is asking legitimate questions about potential social issues an example of anger/fear?
Look, I get it - someone (me) questioned one of your sacred cattle, and it pisses you off - that's pretty much the basis of most human conflict. The proper response, IMO, is to get over your emotional reaction and look at the situation logically, in order to derive a reasonable conclusion.
Attacking me for asking questions does a disservice to us both, you know.
Meh, they're probably just trying to lull us into a false sense of security before deploying the dragnet.
Remember, private prisons often sell themselves on promises of 90-95% fill rates!