You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a... wait for it... SACRED institution like Marriage.
MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.
But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.
Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).
Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.
Yup, We are all partly responsible for the very things that our actions perpetuate.
I'm not a corporate apologist at all, I'm actually for things like corporate death penalty and criminal indictments for board members and corporate officers who don't do their job right.
ONLY when corporate shareholders are affected in their pocketbooks for the very thing they are turning a blind eye to, in the name of profits at any cost, will they start to invest with a social conscience.
But it doesn't matter what I think, because I'm in the minority, and most liberal and conservatives don't like what I suggest.
Responsibility is upon all of us. We all will end up sharing the cost of this eventually. Government will regulate more, raising prices, causing shortages, and otherwise artificially menacing the market.
Do you know that the there is a LIMIT to the cost that BP are legally responsible for the cleanup? I think it is $75 million or something outrageously low. Do you know the government already taxes oil for a cleanup fund, which contains some $1 billion (also low) in it?
The problem that I was pointing out, is everyone loves the benefits of something, until something goes south, and then they don't think they have and complicity in the matter, and expect other to pay for it, without affecting them.
Well, that is just simply fairy tales and pixie dust. We all are gonna pay, because we all use petroleum products. That is why I called it inconvenient.
As for MY $.02 worth, I would love to see it come from BP shareholders, for the primary cost. ONLY THEN will the shareholders start taking a better account of how their companies are run, rather than the laissez faire attitude that we currently have regarding large corporations actions and policies.
If there was truly negligence and/o malfeasance at the top level of BP corporate, I would also like to see the Corporate Death Penalty take affect, and criminal indictments. But that is my sense of fairness.
Re:1984's future resonance was clear and predictab
on
15 Vintage Tech Ads
·
· Score: 1
For the GP: Here's a thought. Drive a car? Heat your house with Oil? Ride a Train? Use Plastics?
Guess what, your hands are just as dirty as BP.
I know this is INCONVENIENT to the Anti-corporate, anti-petroleum, liberal crowd. But unless you live a life apart from petroleum based products, you're complicit in the oil spill, because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.
It is easy to drill in a barren desert in a far away land, which is run by religious nuts, where if there is an oil spill, you just don't care. And it is easy to decry the failure of this on oil rig, while driving (or being driven) down the road (or track) in your internal combustion engine vehicle of choice.
So until you're completely removed from the benefits of petroleum based products (including many plastics), you're at least partially responsible for the problem.
Of course, we can stop all off shore drilling completely and all drilling anywhere where we "care" about the "environment" but I think you'd be whining then about $100/gal gas prices and more of our money going to wacko religious nutjobs in the Middle East.
Show me one survey where 50% + 1 of the people surveyed that like the health care bill that was passed. For everyone that you can find (if any) I'll find several that show otherwise.
See the right edge. I can see only two "surveys" done there that have an approval rating higher than 50%, most are WELL BELOW, and a big reason why the (D) are probably going to lose the house and possibly even senate in Nov.
One is a felony Mail tampering, one is computer tampering. Email is not considered the same as regular Mail.
And while my mailbox has a lock on it, it is simple and easy to bypass, I'd hate to see people make the same excuses for someone lifting mail from my box as they do for people lifting email from Hotmail (or whatever).
Just like most Americans don't want the "Health Care" that was just passed?
Any minority trying to impose its will on the majority through elitism (we're right/you're wrong, we know better than you) is just as flawed as any other.
Both (D) and (R) are guilty of this, and are hypocritical.
Road to Perdition is filled with good intentions. Trying is a noisy way of doing nothing (or worse).
Here's an example of what I mean. Killing people should be avoided at all costs. However killing someone doesn't necessarily equate to a failure.
Good Intentions (not killing people) is often not enough. Sometimes one has to kill for the greater good. Just because one kills someone doesn't mean they wanted to.
Of course there are those that are too simple minded to understand this, so please excuse them. They will appear below this post, disagreeing with me.
Not only must they provide the equipment, they would also have to pay for the internet service used to connect said equipment to the email system.
If I don't have phone service at home and don't have cable because I use a cell phone and TV bores me, then good luck finding Cable or Telco that will install internet service without it being bundled with one of their other services (From experience).
Oh, and I won't take a Stipend (taxable) for the cost of the service either. They'll pay for the service directly.
Basically, if the employer (via their IT dept) wants to make rules, change them randomly and not want to take ownership of their requirements then they can... pound sand. Should they try to fire me, for my private life choices then they'll be ripe for a huge class action lawsuit. I'm not a slave, nor will I act like one.
Pay me for what you require of me. Change what you require, and we start negotiations.
I've actually done something like what you're suggesting that we don't do, that is competing with higher ups.
In my case the higher up was trying to write me up (preface to firing). My boss was trying to nitpick a "rule" about "Unauthorized network connections with unknown hosts" (I was using Bittorrent to download a Linux ISO), saying that I violated the rule/policy.
I looked at him squarely in the eye, and asked him if he was sure that any "unauthorized network connection with unknown hosts" was a violation of this rule. He stated that it was. I asked again, ARE YOU SURE. He responded that he was.
I then informed him that I would be bringing charges against him and everyone else in the district who used a web browser, and the whole IT dept for running webservers, as every connection to any server that wasn't authorized was a violation of the literal letter of the policy, exactly as he was trying to enforce with me.
His ashen face was classic. That was the end of that.
Yeah, but people want a nanny state to tell them what to do. More importantly they want the state to tell others what they want others to do. It is the bane of Progressive Politics; the whole "we know better than you" laws.
I've actually taught my kids this little tidbit. It goes like this: "You can eat anything you want, but not everything you eat is food".
Then I teach them what that means.
Ice Cream is not food. Milk is food. Cheese is food. While Ice Cream is yummy and made with milk, it is not food.
Potatoes are food. Sour Cream and Butter are not food. Oil is not food. Frying Potatoes in oil, and caking them with sour cream and butter turns potatoes into "not food".
Three year old children of normal intelligence can understand this. They also learn something that you can take something that is food, and turn it into "not food". And it teaches them how food becomes "not food" by critical thinking.
If you teach your kids this, they'll be able to make informed decisions later in life and understand that just because you can eat it, doesn't mean it is food.
The problem with "society's sensible attempts" is one man's sensibility is another man's tyranny.
Here's the opposite of what you said, lets see if you agree with this statement...
"A perfect socialistic economy is a fantasy dreamed up by economically-illiterate clowns in order to justify their idea of what is fairness should be."
Here is one fact, there is NO perfect system, because we humans are not perfect. Fairness, equality, and justice are just ideals, ideals that cannot ever be reached. Life is not fair, not equal, and justice is fleeting at best.
The moment one makes extraordinary efforts to make things "fair" to all, the system itself becomes necessarily unfair to some.
I'm not denying that there is evil, I'm explicitly saying there is. The question isn't where things are clear, it is the muddled gray in the middle. And that requires judgment and judgments are often wrong. Humans make mistakes, it is inevitable. We can't legislate perfection, it doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.
MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.
But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.
Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).
Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.
Liberals don't ever try to force THEIR morality on everyone else ... NO!!!!
(Health Care)
(Happy Meal Toy Ban)
(“But I don’t believe it was rape rape.”)
(global warming)
(Discarding Live birth after failed abortions)
One person's conscience is another person's theocracy. Just because liberals don't go to church doesn't mean it isn't a religion.
Yup, We are all partly responsible for the very things that our actions perpetuate.
I'm not a corporate apologist at all, I'm actually for things like corporate death penalty and criminal indictments for board members and corporate officers who don't do their job right.
ONLY when corporate shareholders are affected in their pocketbooks for the very thing they are turning a blind eye to, in the name of profits at any cost, will they start to invest with a social conscience.
But it doesn't matter what I think, because I'm in the minority, and most liberal and conservatives don't like what I suggest.
Responsibility is upon all of us. We all will end up sharing the cost of this eventually. Government will regulate more, raising prices, causing shortages, and otherwise artificially menacing the market.
Do you know that the there is a LIMIT to the cost that BP are legally responsible for the cleanup? I think it is $75 million or something outrageously low. Do you know the government already taxes oil for a cleanup fund, which contains some $1 billion (also low) in it?
The problem that I was pointing out, is everyone loves the benefits of something, until something goes south, and then they don't think they have and complicity in the matter, and expect other to pay for it, without affecting them.
Well, that is just simply fairy tales and pixie dust. We all are gonna pay, because we all use petroleum products. That is why I called it inconvenient.
As for MY $.02 worth, I would love to see it come from BP shareholders, for the primary cost. ONLY THEN will the shareholders start taking a better account of how their companies are run, rather than the laissez faire attitude that we currently have regarding large corporations actions and policies.
If there was truly negligence and/o malfeasance at the top level of BP corporate, I would also like to see the Corporate Death Penalty take affect, and criminal indictments. But that is my sense of fairness.
I think you're just proj .... ah never mind!
For the GP: Here's a thought. Drive a car? Heat your house with Oil? Ride a Train? Use Plastics?
Guess what, your hands are just as dirty as BP.
I know this is INCONVENIENT to the Anti-corporate, anti-petroleum, liberal crowd. But unless you live a life apart from petroleum based products, you're complicit in the oil spill, because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.
It is easy to drill in a barren desert in a far away land, which is run by religious nuts, where if there is an oil spill, you just don't care. And it is easy to decry the failure of this on oil rig, while driving (or being driven) down the road (or track) in your internal combustion engine vehicle of choice.
So until you're completely removed from the benefits of petroleum based products (including many plastics), you're at least partially responsible for the problem.
Of course, we can stop all off shore drilling completely and all drilling anywhere where we "care" about the "environment" but I think you'd be whining then about $100/gal gas prices and more of our money going to wacko religious nutjobs in the Middle East.
A guy trying to do good and failing, and a guy doing evil are exactly the same except in intentions.
Or to put it in a way that you might understand:
"Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
Show me one survey where 50% + 1 of the people surveyed that like the health care bill that was passed. For everyone that you can find (if any) I'll find several that show otherwise.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
See the right edge. I can see only two "surveys" done there that have an approval rating higher than 50%, most are WELL BELOW, and a big reason why the (D) are probably going to lose the house and possibly even senate in Nov.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/012510/sta_554316966.shtml
Citation you gave doesn't prove a crime. The citation I give explicitly says it wasn't a crime.
Care to try again?
Citation needed.
Yup, just as stupid. Thank you for reminding me.
One is a felony Mail tampering, one is computer tampering. Email is not considered the same as regular Mail.
And while my mailbox has a lock on it, it is simple and easy to bypass, I'd hate to see people make the same excuses for someone lifting mail from my box as they do for people lifting email from Hotmail (or whatever).
There are two stupid people at the heart of this story, David Kernell and Sarah Palin. Stupid knows no political boundaries.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is just politically naive or blinded by (D) or (R) labels
Blue Pill? I was only offered the red or green one. Dang, I got ripped off.
Just like most Americans don't want the "Health Care" that was just passed?
Any minority trying to impose its will on the majority through elitism (we're right/you're wrong, we know better than you) is just as flawed as any other.
Both (D) and (R) are guilty of this, and are hypocritical.
Road to Perdition is filled with good intentions. Trying is a noisy way of doing nothing (or worse).
Here's an example of what I mean. Killing people should be avoided at all costs. However killing someone doesn't necessarily equate to a failure.
Good Intentions (not killing people) is often not enough. Sometimes one has to kill for the greater good. Just because one kills someone doesn't mean they wanted to.
Of course there are those that are too simple minded to understand this, so please excuse them. They will appear below this post, disagreeing with me.
Sometimes the best thing to do is benign neglect.
Not only must they provide the equipment, they would also have to pay for the internet service used to connect said equipment to the email system.
If I don't have phone service at home and don't have cable because I use a cell phone and TV bores me, then good luck finding Cable or Telco that will install internet service without it being bundled with one of their other services (From experience).
Oh, and I won't take a Stipend (taxable) for the cost of the service either. They'll pay for the service directly.
Basically, if the employer (via their IT dept) wants to make rules, change them randomly and not want to take ownership of their requirements then they can ... pound sand. Should they try to fire me, for my private life choices then they'll be ripe for a huge class action lawsuit. I'm not a slave, nor will I act like one.
Pay me for what you require of me. Change what you require, and we start negotiations.
I've actually done something like what you're suggesting that we don't do, that is competing with higher ups.
In my case the higher up was trying to write me up (preface to firing). My boss was trying to nitpick a "rule" about "Unauthorized network connections with unknown hosts" (I was using Bittorrent to download a Linux ISO), saying that I violated the rule/policy.
I looked at him squarely in the eye, and asked him if he was sure that any "unauthorized network connection with unknown hosts" was a violation of this rule. He stated that it was. I asked again, ARE YOU SURE. He responded that he was.
I then informed him that I would be bringing charges against him and everyone else in the district who used a web browser, and the whole IT dept for running webservers, as every connection to any server that wasn't authorized was a violation of the literal letter of the policy, exactly as he was trying to enforce with me.
His ashen face was classic. That was the end of that.
That strategy worked so well with SCO now didn't it?
If that were a law, Nancy Pelosi would be in jail. Actually, I think she has a dick as well, but I'm not 100% certain on that.
Yeah, but people want a nanny state to tell them what to do. More importantly they want the state to tell others what they want others to do. It is the bane of Progressive Politics; the whole "we know better than you" laws.
I've actually taught my kids this little tidbit. It goes like this: "You can eat anything you want, but not everything you eat is food".
Then I teach them what that means.
Ice Cream is not food. Milk is food. Cheese is food. While Ice Cream is yummy and made with milk, it is not food.
Potatoes are food. Sour Cream and Butter are not food. Oil is not food. Frying Potatoes in oil, and caking them with sour cream and butter turns potatoes into "not food".
Three year old children of normal intelligence can understand this. They also learn something that you can take something that is food, and turn it into "not food". And it teaches them how food becomes "not food" by critical thinking.
If you teach your kids this, they'll be able to make informed decisions later in life and understand that just because you can eat it, doesn't mean it is food.
Socialist 1: "I don't like how Apple Prices everything too high"
Socialist 2: "Yeah, I agree, there ought to be a law!"
Socialist 1: "I can call my buddy Pelosi and she can open an inquiry"
Socialist 2: "You should! It is totally unfair what Apple charges for their products"
Free Market Person over hearing the conversation: "Mind your own business, and don't buy Apple's stuff"
Socialists 1 and 2: "Nazi!"
The problem with "society's sensible attempts" is one man's sensibility is another man's tyranny.
Here's the opposite of what you said, lets see if you agree with this statement ...
"A perfect socialistic economy is a fantasy dreamed up by economically-illiterate clowns in order to justify their idea of what is fairness should be."
Here is one fact, there is NO perfect system, because we humans are not perfect. Fairness, equality, and justice are just ideals, ideals that cannot ever be reached. Life is not fair, not equal, and justice is fleeting at best.
The moment one makes extraordinary efforts to make things "fair" to all, the system itself becomes necessarily unfair to some.
I'm not denying that there is evil, I'm explicitly saying there is. The question isn't where things are clear, it is the muddled gray in the middle. And that requires judgment and judgments are often wrong. Humans make mistakes, it is inevitable. We can't legislate perfection, it doesn't work.