The "country" doesn't "tie" health care to an employer. Private insurance is offered by some employers as a benefit. The US is one of the few Western countries where private insurance is actually legal.
So your single anecdotal evidence, which is little more than a general observation that you've "seen a difference in the seasons", is supposed to be credible from an objective, scientific standpoint?
And the question isn't whether the climate is changing, it is always changing. The question is how much, how fast, and why.
The parent didn't make a point of saying "This is true because worldnetdaily says so". However, the responder claimed the source was not trustworthy ("worldnutdaily"), without addressing the core argument, so that is the true ad hominem. If someone criticizes your source, the correct course of action is to declare ad hominem and defend your source.
Most people exchange what they produce for money, which is almost universally exchangeable for something else of value without carrying the risk of a non-cash type of asset. The parent's point is that in a free market people exchange their work for something of value which is owned and controlled by them. People care more about that which they own than that which they do not own.
And most Fortune 500 companies do just fine in good times and bad. If you are thinking of that the banks have been mis-managed lately, think again. The banks adapted high-risk, high-return strategies because there was an implicit guarantee that the Feds would bail them out. Guess what? The Feds bailed them out. The banks would likely not have engaged in such risky behavior without the meddling of the Federal government through institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and insipidly poor oversight by the SEC and Congress.
First they came for the guns and I said nothing because oooooo guns are scary and loud. Now only the criminals have guns.
Then they came for the knives and I said nothing because who needs a knife really - can't you just gnaw on meat instead of cut it up neatly? It was good enough for our ancestors. Now only the criminals and licensed butchers have knives...
Who's next?
It's ironic that the left in England used to call Margaret Thatcher a fascist...who's the fascist now?
Could it be a black dwarf star in our own galaxy that was illuminated by the light of a past supernova? That could account for the relatively short time the object was illuminated.
Do the anti-Scientology posters to youtube have to reveal information about themselves to Scientology Inc. through their counter-notices? Isn't this just a way for Scientology to get the identities of the posters?
It's only hypocritical if you consider all governments to be equally responsible and trustworthy on the international stage.
Which is nonsense, not all countries are created equal. Iran's government was created by a violent theocratic revolution and continues to be that to this day. North Korea was created in a violent Stalinist revolution and continues to be that to this day.
People don't equate the two because the only similarities are vague ones (like big country A invades little country B). The world is a complicated place and moral equivalence usually breaks down on serious examination.
Did Georgia invade and annex a neighboring country? Did Georgia try to assassinate an ex-Russian leader? Did Georgia have secret, illegal weapons programs? Did Georgia have 12 years of UN resolutions telling it to shape up or else? Did Georgia have an un-elected despot leader? Did Georgia systematically murder 1000's of its own citizens, even using chemical weapons?
Is it rational to mask your disgust with a display faux befuddlement? If you're going to take time out of your busy day to poke Christians with a stick, you could at least make a rational argument.
But I guess you don't have to because at Slashdot your "point" is an accepted meme by the majority of readers. Which further makes me wonder "why bother?". Maybe you're just a bigot who can't tolerate those who aren't like you.
Should the government require web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints
Since most Americans don't read blogs, the survey question was probably interepreted as applying to sites like CNN.com, nytimes.com, and other mainstream news sites. Since most GOP think the media is liberal, most of them are probably thinking of recent incidents like the NYTimes refusing to run a McCain editorial, and the generally higher level of coverage for Obama's campaign. So fairness might be more top of mind and desirable.
You seem to have a bizarre objection to the use of the electoral college vs. popular vote. The use of the electoral college was a compromise with less populous states to give them slightly more power than populous states to help them avoid being pushed around. The real power behind this idea is in the Senate, where every state has two votes. The power in presidential elections is watered down quite a bit, but it is still there.
But you're obviously only complaining because your guy lost.
Exactly. Instead of drilling domestically, where we know we can do it cleanly and for little political cost, we import oil from places like Mexico and Nigeria where environmental regulations are lax, and places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where the governments are actively working against our interests in the world. This makes no sense and I don't see how any thinking person can think this policy - Nancy Pelosi's policy - is helping to save the planet.
Politics is mostly theater, faux outrage, and pandering. Why would a stunt like this cause the average Slashdot reader's blood to boil?
Because it's the GOP pulling the stunt. I don't recall much scoffing at Dennis Kucinich's attempt to hold impeachment hearings on President Bush. No, I guess that was all about a righteous avenger shining a spotlight on The Greatest Evil Our Planet Has Ever Known.
These kinds of stunts get the media's attention and some coverage for issues one party or the other thinks is important. The fact that the Democrats didn't even hold a vote on domestic drilling despite overwhelming public support is something that ought to be mocked.
It's more sensible and cost effective for mankind to use technology to adapt to climate change rather than to try to change the climate. After all, some climate change isn't caused by man and can't be stopped. Witness the last little ice age, and the last ice age before that that glaciated much of the northern hemisphere.
Eventually some idiotic scheme like dumping X in the oceans is going to cause a truly great disaster. We need to stop screwing around with the Earth. Climate science is still in its infancy.
Saddam was trying to buy more. You can just ask Joe Wilson, who told the Senate that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger in 1998 and 1999.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."
According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
Slashdot Mirror
The "country" doesn't "tie" health care to an employer. Private insurance is offered by some employers as a benefit. The US is one of the few Western countries where private insurance is actually legal.
So your single anecdotal evidence, which is little more than a general observation that you've "seen a difference in the seasons", is supposed to be credible from an objective, scientific standpoint?
And the question isn't whether the climate is changing, it is always changing. The question is how much, how fast, and why.
The parent didn't make a point of saying "This is true because worldnetdaily says so". However, the responder claimed the source was not trustworthy ("worldnutdaily"), without addressing the core argument, so that is the true ad hominem. If someone criticizes your source, the correct course of action is to declare ad hominem and defend your source.
Most people exchange what they produce for money, which is almost universally exchangeable for something else of value without carrying the risk of a non-cash type of asset. The parent's point is that in a free market people exchange their work for something of value which is owned and controlled by them. People care more about that which they own than that which they do not own.
And most Fortune 500 companies do just fine in good times and bad. If you are thinking of that the banks have been mis-managed lately, think again. The banks adapted high-risk, high-return strategies because there was an implicit guarantee that the Feds would bail them out. Guess what? The Feds bailed them out. The banks would likely not have engaged in such risky behavior without the meddling of the Federal government through institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and insipidly poor oversight by the SEC and Congress.
Did they factor in the quality of life loss from working around stinky, sweaty Englishmen all day?
First they came for the guns and I said nothing because oooooo guns are scary and loud. Now only the criminals have guns.
Then they came for the knives and I said nothing because who needs a knife really - can't you just gnaw on meat instead of cut it up neatly? It was good enough for our ancestors. Now only the criminals and licensed butchers have knives...
Who's next?
It's ironic that the left in England used to call Margaret Thatcher a fascist...who's the fascist now?
Could it be a black dwarf star in our own galaxy that was illuminated by the light of a past supernova? That could account for the relatively short time the object was illuminated.
Do the anti-Scientology posters to youtube have to reveal information about themselves to Scientology Inc. through their counter-notices? Isn't this just a way for Scientology to get the identities of the posters?
It's only hypocritical if you consider all governments to be equally responsible and trustworthy on the international stage.
Which is nonsense, not all countries are created equal. Iran's government was created by a violent theocratic revolution and continues to be that to this day. North Korea was created in a violent Stalinist revolution and continues to be that to this day.
Iran is not a democracy since its federal government can disqualify any candidate for any reason and often does.
It is a fascist theocracy that is actively exporting its ideology. It is the worst kind of government to have a nuclear weapon.
People don't equate the two because the only similarities are vague ones (like big country A invades little country B). The world is a complicated place and moral equivalence usually breaks down on serious examination.
Did Georgia invade and annex a neighboring country?
Did Georgia try to assassinate an ex-Russian leader?
Did Georgia have secret, illegal weapons programs?
Did Georgia have 12 years of UN resolutions telling it to shape up or else?
Did Georgia have an un-elected despot leader?
Did Georgia systematically murder 1000's of its own citizens, even using chemical weapons?
The cops probably gave him a choice between suicide and a slow form of Russian castration.
Is it rational to mask your disgust with a display faux befuddlement? If you're going to take time out of your busy day to poke Christians with a stick, you could at least make a rational argument.
But I guess you don't have to because at Slashdot your "point" is an accepted meme by the majority of readers. Which further makes me wonder "why bother?". Maybe you're just a bigot who can't tolerate those who aren't like you.
The survey question was:
Since most Americans don't read blogs, the survey question was probably interepreted as applying to sites like CNN.com, nytimes.com, and other mainstream news sites. Since most GOP think the media is liberal, most of them are probably thinking of recent incidents like the NYTimes refusing to run a McCain editorial, and the generally higher level of coverage for Obama's campaign. So fairness might be more top of mind and desirable.
You seem to have a bizarre objection to the use of the electoral college vs. popular vote. The use of the electoral college was a compromise with less populous states to give them slightly more power than populous states to help them avoid being pushed around. The real power behind this idea is in the Senate, where every state has two votes. The power in presidential elections is watered down quite a bit, but it is still there.
But you're obviously only complaining because your guy lost.
Ack, you didn't read my post...I was mocking Kucinich.
Exactly. Instead of drilling domestically, where we know we can do it cleanly and for little political cost, we import oil from places like Mexico and Nigeria where environmental regulations are lax, and places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where the governments are actively working against our interests in the world. This makes no sense and I don't see how any thinking person can think this policy - Nancy Pelosi's policy - is helping to save the planet.
Politics is mostly theater, faux outrage, and pandering. Why would a stunt like this cause the average Slashdot reader's blood to boil?
Because it's the GOP pulling the stunt. I don't recall much scoffing at Dennis Kucinich's attempt to hold impeachment hearings on President Bush. No, I guess that was all about a righteous avenger shining a spotlight on The Greatest Evil Our Planet Has Ever Known.
These kinds of stunts get the media's attention and some coverage for issues one party or the other thinks is important. The fact that the Democrats didn't even hold a vote on domestic drilling despite overwhelming public support is something that ought to be mocked.
We were a bit disappointed when we heard the recent two-episode Watchmen series announcement since it was to be set as a brawler.
I dare you to make less sense.
It's more sensible and cost effective for mankind to use technology to adapt to climate change rather than to try to change the climate. After all, some climate change isn't caused by man and can't be stopped. Witness the last little ice age, and the last ice age before that that glaciated much of the northern hemisphere.
Eventually some idiotic scheme like dumping X in the oceans is going to cause a truly great disaster. We need to stop screwing around with the Earth. Climate science is still in its infancy.
Precious Roy says: "Suckers!"
Precious Roy, Precious Roy!
Makin' lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
Saddam was trying to buy more. You can just ask Joe Wilson, who told the Senate that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger in 1998 and 1999.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."
According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
more...
Bill was impeached for lying under oath. The only place you can get impeached for getting a hummer is Alabama.
Are you suggesting the govt would voluntarily hold themselves to the same legal standards as the rest of us?
First, the solution doesn't enrich anyone in power.
Please try to think things through.