If we had the electrical infrastructure to really support them. Decades of fear mongering have left us way behind on our return to safe and clean nuclear power, which could easily handle the increase in power consumption associated with a switch from ICE technology.
Consider the debate between science and religion. Both claim to be ways of finding truth. Now I've met some pretty stupid scientists and some really smart priests. But science on the whole has a much better track record for finding facts and improving the lives of people than religion does.
I would be willing to argue that one has no better track record than the other. Eugenics? Early medical testing? 'Science' (if you can group it like that), just like 'Religion', is a tool, and it is the person using it that makes the difference.
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Consider the two biggest things this president has done, passed health care reform, and stimulus spending. His health care plan is more conservative than Nixons, so he's certainly no liberal there. His stimulus policies were just a continuation of Bush's, so that doesn't sound too liberal either.
Nixon's health care plan wasn't very conservative. In the same way increasing the size of the government wasn't really conservative, so Bush apparently wasn't conservative. My point is that self proclaimed 'liberals' and 'conservatives' can't be generalized as you did.
Guantanamo is still open, the Iraq war is still ongoing, and most of the Patriot act is still in place or is being expanded. The poor will probably become slightly less poor, the middle class will become poor, and the really rich will stay really rich and in power.
And all these things are happening because of insufficient liberalism on the part of our government. Conservatives created the fiction that Guantanamo was outside of US jurisdiction. Conservatives lied their way into the Iraq war. Conservatives wrote the Patriot act (though the Democrats (none of them liberals) who voted for it are not without blame). And the gap between the rich and poor has gotten ever wider in the last 30 years of Conservative rule.
These policies continue because our government can in no way be described as liberal.
This is just the 'No True Scottsman' argument used in this oh-so familiar context. It's just as easy to say Bush wasn't very conservative, and that's why nothing worked. In the same way it's easy to say Obama isn't very liberal, and that's why nothing is working. In your mind, 'liberal' apparently means 'progressive and forward thinking' and 'conservative' means 'backwards'. In mine, 'liberal' and 'conservative' have very different meaning, one based off of the examples we've had to work with over the past 20 years or so.
I should also point out that in the last '30 years of conservative rule', the average person has started paying taxes over the 50% mark of their income, and America easily has the highest tax rate of any supposed 'Capitalist' nation (and higher than that of most 'Socialist' nations). Tax rates this high are not a mark of conservative ideology at work.
Now of course conservatives aren't perfect. But at least they usually aren't willing to force their untested ideologically-based and ridiculously expensive systems on people.
War on Drugs? Don't Ask Don't Tell? The War in Iraq? Border fences? Abstinence only education?
I was pointing out the asinine nature of such a comment. You can't apply such blanket statements correlating ideology to behavior and expect them to stick.
All I am trying to say here is that it is a blend of the worst of Liberal and Conservative ideology that has put us in the horrible state we're in. If you have to have extremists and radicals, then you have to have them on both sides to balance the flak, but the unfortunate way in which our electorate functions means that we basically just end up getting the worst of both sides (Conservative social policies, Liberal economic policies).
Do you actually think anybody with a liberal ideology actually is smarter, better, and less likely to repeat their mistakes?
And yet here we are with arguably the most liberal president and congress ever. They are perfectly willing to push more troops into Afghanistan, more money into welfare and health care systems that have pretty much bankrupted every US State that has ever tried them (we Americans are way too unhealthy for it), and do their best to push for laws that give more power to the government and less liberty to the individual, many of which have been discussed right here on slashdot. Guantanamo is still open, the Iraq war is still ongoing, and most of the Patriot act is still in place or is being expanded. The poor will probably become slightly less poor, the middle class will become poor, and the really rich will stay really rich and in power.
A quick look around the nation also reveals that the most 'conservative' states also typically have the best economies, standards of living, and no less personal freedoms.
Now of course conservatives aren't perfect. But at least they usually aren't willing to force their untested ideologically-based and ridiculously expensive systems on people. At least they look to a future where a person who works harder and smarter can reap the rewards instead of toiling away so those less motivated or capable can live a slightly less mediocre life at their expense.
Having said that, be sure to vote Libertarian. Republicans don't represent the conservative nature of most of America.
I know most Linux users aren't exactly the most socially capable people, but get real, most of them don't even care what reasons people have for using the operating system they do. Instead of having a girlfriend they toil the night away re-inventing the wheel, admiring their neck beards, and ranting about Mac and Windows users on slashdot.
Really that naive?
In paying 1% of their income, an evil rich guy will pay more in taxes than you will see all year.
What infuriates me is when the middle class gets lumped in with the rich and ends up being poor, all because of class hate.
"Stoddart asked Google to do four things before she would consider the matter closed: put in place a governance model to ensure that privacy is protected when new products are launched; enhance privacy training to foster compliance amongst all employees; designate an individual responsible for privacy issues; and delete the Canadian data."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm amazed they got away with it this long. This is just another thing in a long list of overreactions to 9/11 that will finish the job they started.
If we had the electrical infrastructure to really support them. Decades of fear mongering have left us way behind on our return to safe and clean nuclear power, which could easily handle the increase in power consumption associated with a switch from ICE technology.
Consider the debate between science and religion. Both claim to be ways of finding truth. Now I've met some pretty stupid scientists and some really smart priests. But science on the whole has a much better track record for finding facts and improving the lives of people than religion does.
I would be willing to argue that one has no better track record than the other. Eugenics? Early medical testing? 'Science' (if you can group it like that), just like 'Religion', is a tool, and it is the person using it that makes the difference.
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Consider the two biggest things this president has done, passed health care reform, and stimulus spending. His health care plan is more conservative than Nixons, so he's certainly no liberal there. His stimulus policies were just a continuation of Bush's, so that doesn't sound too liberal either.
Nixon's health care plan wasn't very conservative. In the same way increasing the size of the government wasn't really conservative, so Bush apparently wasn't conservative. My point is that self proclaimed 'liberals' and 'conservatives' can't be generalized as you did.
Guantanamo is still open, the Iraq war is still ongoing, and most of the Patriot act is still in place or is being expanded. The poor will probably become slightly less poor, the middle class will become poor, and the really rich will stay really rich and in power.
And all these things are happening because of insufficient liberalism on the part of our government. Conservatives created the fiction that Guantanamo was outside of US jurisdiction. Conservatives lied their way into the Iraq war. Conservatives wrote the Patriot act (though the Democrats (none of them liberals) who voted for it are not without blame). And the gap between the rich and poor has gotten ever wider in the last 30 years of Conservative rule.
These policies continue because our government can in no way be described as liberal.
This is just the 'No True Scottsman' argument used in this oh-so familiar context. It's just as easy to say Bush wasn't very conservative, and that's why nothing worked. In the same way it's easy to say Obama isn't very liberal, and that's why nothing is working. In your mind, 'liberal' apparently means 'progressive and forward thinking' and 'conservative' means 'backwards'. In mine, 'liberal' and 'conservative' have very different meaning, one based off of the examples we've had to work with over the past 20 years or so.
I should also point out that in the last '30 years of conservative rule', the average person has started paying taxes over the 50% mark of their income, and America easily has the highest tax rate of any supposed 'Capitalist' nation (and higher than that of most 'Socialist' nations). Tax rates this high are not a mark of conservative ideology at work.
Now of course conservatives aren't perfect. But at least they usually aren't willing to force their untested ideologically-based and ridiculously expensive systems on people.
War on Drugs? Don't Ask Don't Tell? The War in Iraq? Border fences? Abstinence only education?
I was pointing out the asinine nature of such a comment. You can't apply such blanket statements correlating ideology to behavior and expect them to stick.
All I am trying to say here is that it is a blend of the worst of Liberal and Conservative ideology that has put us in the horrible state we're in. If you have to have extremists and radicals, then you have to have them on both sides to balance the flak, but the unfortunate way in which our electorate functions means that we basically just end up getting the worst of both sides (Conservative social policies, Liberal economic policies).
Do you actually buy into what you're saying?
Do you actually think anybody with a liberal ideology actually is smarter, better, and less likely to repeat their mistakes?
And yet here we are with arguably the most liberal president and congress ever. They are perfectly willing to push more troops into Afghanistan, more money into welfare and health care systems that have pretty much bankrupted every US State that has ever tried them (we Americans are way too unhealthy for it), and do their best to push for laws that give more power to the government and less liberty to the individual, many of which have been discussed right here on slashdot. Guantanamo is still open, the Iraq war is still ongoing, and most of the Patriot act is still in place or is being expanded. The poor will probably become slightly less poor, the middle class will become poor, and the really rich will stay really rich and in power.
A quick look around the nation also reveals that the most 'conservative' states also typically have the best economies, standards of living, and no less personal freedoms.
Now of course conservatives aren't perfect. But at least they usually aren't willing to force their untested ideologically-based and ridiculously expensive systems on people. At least they look to a future where a person who works harder and smarter can reap the rewards instead of toiling away so those less motivated or capable can live a slightly less mediocre life at their expense.
Having said that, be sure to vote Libertarian. Republicans don't represent the conservative nature of most of America.
You click on ads on Facebook.
...Mindless flock of sheep, really.
Generalize much? I can do that too.
I know most Linux users aren't exactly the most socially capable people, but get real, most of them don't even care what reasons people have for using the operating system they do. Instead of having a girlfriend they toil the night away re-inventing the wheel, admiring their neck beards, and ranting about Mac and Windows users on slashdot.
And yes, I use Linux.
Instead of the Medieval-style rich and pampered aristocracy we currently have? Sure. That would happen.
Really that naive? In paying 1% of their income, an evil rich guy will pay more in taxes than you will see all year. What infuriates me is when the middle class gets lumped in with the rich and ends up being poor, all because of class hate.
Corporations pay taxes and individuals keep their money. It could happen.
"Stoddart asked Google to do four things before she would consider the matter closed: put in place a governance model to ensure that privacy is protected when new products are launched; enhance privacy training to foster compliance amongst all employees; designate an individual responsible for privacy issues; and delete the Canadian data."
Man, I hate to say it but if you're going to release 400,000 stolen US military documents you had better be a freaking saint, or you will fry.
Had no idea what it was either until I read this. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/networking/?p=234
The Japanese figured this shit out in the 80s.
M. Night Shyamylan said it was the trees, and humans operating nuclear power plants near them would surely cause us to be next...