Re:By "Green" he meant environmentally friendly
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
You're saying the "Green party" isn't green?
Uh, ok, if that's the case then you're right.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, we all know that always works! Let's just disregard the vast discrepency in the ability for an individual versus major polluting corporations in sustaining a legal battle.
Funny how people seem to have no problem doing it now-- especially for thing that affect more than one person-- you get a couple you have a class action lawsuit and they go to town.
The lawyers do it for a cut of the check and if they make their case then great.
Problem is they have to actually show damages.
But when people can seriously sue McDonalds for making their kids fat, I think the bar might be too low, not too high!
Re:I am an anti-environmentalist
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Unfortunately its economically profitable to keep the forests producing trees every generation, and the oceans full of fish, and so the technology will be developed by these industries to protect the environment-- DESPITE all the terrorism and anti-environmental activities of the "environmentalists"
Monopolies? Hah! I love these broad sweeping generalizations-- means you don't know fuck all about the facts of the sitution.
You need to read some writings of an economist that show how monopolies have a hard time surviving.
If there's great power alternatives , that are economically viable, how are "monopolies" keeping them down?
They aren't! Ballard Power in vancouver BC is working on a fuel cell for a car. I'm considering using it on my boat. Course I'm also considering a new electric motor that is ideal for the situation, and if I don't get rid of the diesel, I'll use bio-diesel which isn't mined but made from vegetable oil. Course its $2.50 a gallon so until it comes down in price, I'll use the dinosaur stuff.
Why? Cause of pollution? HELL NO. Cause diesels on boats are a reliable engine compared to gas, but a fuel cell would be even better, and allow for much longer range when coupled wiht solar and wind power. biodiesel? Because it smells better when operating than regular diesel.
I'm all for the environment but all opposed to you forcing people to live by your hippy dippy bullshit lifestyle. Especially when its based on such ignorance-- the only reason I can't go buy a ballard fuel cell right now is that it takes time to get the cost of manufacture down.
They have hundreds of millions of dollars from the "Evil monopoly car companies" that you hate and from energy companies that you claim are shutting them down-- and they make great progress, but expecting them to exceed Moores law in a non-electronics space is pretty absurd.
In other words, you're ignorant.
Re:What do we think, you ask?
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Yep, thanks for proving it.
Its a meaningless phrase that nobody can define without resorting to:
"Sustainable growth is a pattern of growth that is sustainable".
A circular definition proves there is no real one.
Hey dude, I'm sure you haven't noticed, but the economy is WRECKED.
IT would have been a lot more robust and had no problems with a few companies failing and the terrorism issue if it weren't for the onerous government regulation and taxation you idiots impose on it.
The proof of free market economics is that it is still good, despite doing all you can to destroy it.
Except that your car has never been splattered by a squirrel and anyone driving like an idiot in any car is just as much as an idiot, and you really just hate SUVs because they are a status symbol rather than for any environmental excuse...... and on top of all this bigotry you think the amount of forested land is going down, when its going up.
Notice how the environmentalists always lie about how much forest there is-- its cause any forest in which a human has farted is immediately decared NON-FOREST development by them.
At current trends, we'll be having to fight forests off from invading the cities while they run around saying there is no such thing as a forest any more!
I hope we go into civil war in a few year- throw off this repressive regime of do-gooder idiots who want to control everyones actions and thoughts and oppose human rights and don't mind killing people in the name of "saving" trees.
Get back to the america that the founders called for in the declaration of independence.
Re:Recycling Paper Is Harmful
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Don't worry, that won't stop the socialists from trying to pass laws requiring the use of recycled paper.
After all, if its bad for the environment, they're all for it! That's why they're called "environmentalists".
Re:You are sad, pathetic
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Uh, you're such an idiot. I have never submitted an article to slashdot, so how could I care if they never published it?
Sheesh. Yet another troll without an argument to make, but lots of names to call people.
Really impresseive.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Nope,the platform reviewed is STILL the official platform on the party web pages.
Don't try to dodge the truth by LYING about what your platform actually says!
Its so pathetic, Nadar created his own platform to run on-- but the official party platform is there for everyone to see.
The funny thing is, you think military spending is half the federal spending, it isn't.
You guys just believe what you want, irregardless of the facts.
No wonder you don't stand behind your own platform.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Libertarians support the abolition of prescription requirements for the purchase of medications.
Yep, its true. I have a friend who is dying of a disease that is treatable. My friend was in an experimental program and got to try a drug (that is save in humans, is proscribed for other diseases with no problems, but not authorized for treating this particular disease.) The drug worked really well.
But now my friend may DIE because she cannot get this life saving drug because it is not authorized by the FDA for thier particular disease.
I think DOCTORS are the ones that should give such advice, and individuals are the ones who are responsible for what drugs they take- not paper pushers who are not accountable for the DEATH they cause.
You got a problem with that?
Libertarians oppose the right of parents to teach religion to their kids. (I'm really not making these things up; this is actually in their platform.)
this is a flat out lie
Libertarians call for an immediate end to various municipal and state bans on smoking in public places. *cough* *cough*
You socialists are starting to ban them in PRIVATE HOMES.
Anyway, yeah, anyone who wants to open a restaurant can either have smoking ban, or allow their customers to smoke. you don't like it, don't go there
You oppose libertarians because you oppose liberty-- you want to decide what people can do and not let them make their own choices, and that's fascist. Oh, and you're a liar.
If you actually supported human rights, you'd vote libertarian, its the only party that does support them.
I'm skipping the rest of your message, assuming its just as full of crap as this part.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Yes, effectively, Socialist/socialism, Communism, Liberalism and Democrats are all labels for people who advocate the SAME THING.
Since the "liberals" coopted the name liberalism, the classical liberals (the ones that founded this country) have started calling themselves libertarians.
"Green" is just another word for "Communist"... only instead of the lie of "stop being oppressed by the rich", that old style communists use, they use the "those rich corporate bastards are polluting, vote for us and we'll clean the environment"
Even though they propose nothing that would actually improve the environment in their platform, other than just empty claims to do it.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Of COURSE that's an oxymoron. ALL Libertarians and libertarians believe in capitalism.
Socialists, having had the name "communism" become unusable, and "liberal" being diluted from the pure socialism they want, now go by a lot of label, and will coopt label-- any socialist who calls himself a libertarian is a LIAR.
Socialism at its core, violates the NOIF which is the core principle of libertarianism. You CANNOT have socialism without initiating force against people in order to violate their human rights- and you can't have libertarianism if you do.
They are diametrically opposed.
Anyone who says otherwise, is selling a lie.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
This is the old saw of people who can't handle logic, can't do math, and want to believe their religious beliefs despite the facts.
Economics is not perfect, but it is a science, and one set of theories have been proven over the last 100 years to be predictive, both forward and backward in time.
Try reading "Economics in one easy lesson" or taking a basic economics course.
Rather than getting your economics education from people who can't do basic math. (EG Democrats)
Here's a simple lesson for you: http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Uh, dude, read the article I linked at before making your claims. They are backed there.
You aren't a lawyer, by the way, if you were you'd know you can't sue the government-- or you can, but your case will be thrown out almost all the time.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
watermelon is a great word.
The astounding thing is that they advocate the continuation of drug crimianlization but not hte "war on drugs" and want to destroy all the companies in the country (but call it making them employee owned.)
Just like their environmental policies these are things that will do the opposite of what they claim to do.
AS a business owner, if I was forced to give my business to the employees, I'd shut it down. Course we saw how that went in russia- those who shut down businesses rather than let them get nationalized were slaughtered for "Stealing" from the public.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Uh, dude, the review was BASED on the green party platform!
Did you even read the article I linked to? I guess not.
BTW- there are two Green Party US's out there, he's explicit about which platform he's reviewing, and the platform is still the same as it was in 2000.
You really should have read the article-- I'm not saying the companies will be destroyed because they are polluting- the vast majority of companies don't pollute.
But the greens want them ALL DESTROYED anyway! ITs in their platform! Forcible elimination of large companies, incentives for medium companies (And if that doesn't work, force.).
Something about making the proletariat own the means of production, and we all know how that works.
Next time before responding to something "not worth responding to", read the fucking article I linked to, and while you're at it, read the fucking platform you advocate so you know what the hell you're talking about.
Its all in there-- total economic devastation, and somehow that's good for the environment?
The USSR was real environmentally conscious, wasn't it?
Just because someone says they want to protect the environment doesn't excuse your stupidity when they advocate policies that will destroy it.
Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Check out what the greens really believe in:
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.
And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
A company wrongs you, you can sue them. When the government does it, you have no recourse.
Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.
And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?
If you don't understand economics, and want to help the environment, you vote green, and your vote is an endorsement for wholesale environmental destruction.
If you DO understand economics, and you want to protect the environment, you vote libertarian.
Most geeks are actually libertarians, though the geeks on slashdot seem to be mostly socialists-- I suspect this is because most geeks don't hang out on slashdot, and mostly the slashdot is the LAN admin, Server Admin crowd (rather than computer, electrical and software engineers.)
I know, a bunch of socialists are going to scream their empty heads off about this post- but please, don't waste my time. Show how market economics supports your position. (And if you think market economics are irrelevant, then you fit the definition of "not knowing anything about economics."
This country is heading towards tyranny and socialism, and will go the way of the USSR (with a similar 58 million klilled) if we don't reign in the out of control federal government.)
Economics are a science. A Geek, should take science into account- rather than following a religion. You wouldn't look to the church to decide your OS, would you? So why look to the church (or the agnostic mysticism of socialism) to determine your economic policy?
Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Be a Geek and make a scientifically based decision.
First off, I HAVE been poor. I have been homeless and without a dollar to my name. Yet the government wasn't there and it was just lucky I didn't get seriously ill. The society I advocate is one where poor people would be far less likely to fall on those times and if they did, there would be MORE services there for them. so your little pissant comment about poverty is pathetic-- to quote the line from Platoon "Shit, you gotta be rich in the first place to even think like that".
Secondly, the monorail and the RT system under discussion HERE will NOT do anything to decrease cars on the road-- this is according to their own studies. Remember, I live in the city, you dipshit.
That you take your assumption as FACT over the statements of the people who propose the systems in question, shows you don't care about reality- you have an ideology based on bigotry and you don't care what the facts are.
In other words, you're a stupid idiot who INSISTS on staying that way.
You think I'm a lost cuase? Thats cause you're a menace to society.
And, by the way, come try and take my human rights away in person, you gutless wonder, and you'll eat lead. That you advocate something you don't have the guts to enforce shows how low you really are-- not even human.
Anyone who can laugh in the face of genocide and then continue to advocate it-- you deserve the pain you're creating for yourself.
Uh, there are other companies that make cars besides GM, geeze. I have owned cars, but never done business with GM. I deal with oil companies too- I buy gas for my car. What's your point? You don't seem to have one. You seem to be trying to say that I'm evil because I buy these products or that these companies are evil-- well, that's your bigotry so I'm not surprised you'd say that.
I can handle abstraction, you're just being an idiot, that's all.
Sorry, your logic doesn't make any sense- low gas prices are not the cause of pollution in this country, and in fact, there is very little pollution problems from private vehicles. Right or wrong, they have been constructed to minimize emissions and thus the pollution problems of the 70s are gone.
Your understanding of the facts, or your thinking is very simplistic.
These public transit facilities-- REMEMBER I LIVE IN THIS CITY!-- Will not reduce car usage by ONE SINGLE CAR. They are projected to have zero impact on the traffic situation. They will reduce the number of busses needed, allowing the busses that currently serve the downtown area to serve the suburbs instead. I love how you're commenting on public transit programs you know nothing about.
I'd be happy to respond to the whole of your argument-- if you ever made one. This is whats frustrating about you liberal types -you refuse to EVER make an argument, you just invoke names like ENRON as if doing THAT was an argument-- its not.
Never said the government had a monopoly on corruption-- just that when Enron is corrupt, it gets caught and rectified quickly. the social security fraud has been going on for 50 years- nobody has an opportunity to opt out of it, and it is a total fraud. So, when you really want corruption you have to rely on the government.
Funny how I acknowledge that companies can be immoral, but you think they can be nothing but-- and think the government-- which historically is the source of most immorality in the world, and the slaughters of more people in toto than individuals or companies combined. When you want to kill a hundred million people, you need a government- yet you love government and hate companies, wonder why.
No, it is you who are ignorant of facts, and your moral relativism is disgusting-- that is the attitude that leads to GENOCIDE.
ALL SOCIALISTS ARE IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS-- and as a result, they kill millions if not tens of millions of people when they have the power.
That's not dogma, that's scientific fact. IF you knew anything about economics, you'd understand why I say this, but you don't, so its no wonder you're not listening.
I've come to expect nothing more from socialists but such idiotic soundbites and non-arguments.
The truth is, the profit motive has done more to protect human rights than any government EVER has. The violation of human rights is the sole purpose of government, and there is not a government on this planet that has not violated more human rights than even the WORST corporation.
Maybe GM has mistreated a couple dozen workers, but the US governments as violated the human rights of 280 million citizens- and it does more of it every month than all the companies in the country do in a year, combined.
If you really believed in human rights, you'd stop advocating their abolition.
Historically, the profit motive is the single best way to insure fairness, and quality of services at a decent price. Governments always abuse people physically, take away human rights, and insure poverty.
IF you knew the history of the USSR and Europe, you'd know this-- our poorer population group is richer than their middle classes.
I don't mind that people are liberals-- everyone can get mislead when they are told lies.
I do mind that liberals will never construct a logical argument in defense of their positions.
Maybe this is because if they did, they'd see how wrong they are.
By the way, if you want to refute something, at least link to topics that are relevant, Ken Lay's bio is a refutation of how government services are distributed?
Well, since GM sells cars, and I've never owned one, and Shell sells gasoline, and I haven't gone to a shell station since the era of apartheid protest, I know that I don't do business with them.
At any rate, they are irrelevant because they aren't the ones that set tax policy.
Furthermore, that you bring up ENRON, as if it MEANS ANYTHING shows that you're arguing from a position of ideology, not facts. ENRON victimized its employees, and shareholders, was caught and quickly dealt with.
The government (Which by the way, prevented uncovering the enron fraud by about 4 years due to incompetence) is at issue here.
And those gas taxes do not go to clean up pollution, as you seem to think. The government does actually, almost nothing about pollution.
Basically your position is the government can do no wrong because YOU PERSONALLY don't like big companies-- which is silly as well because without them, you wouldn't have a job.
If you want to make an arugment, make it, but invoking company names as if that sufficed as some sort of an argument doesn't cut it.
The government's mismanagmeent of money-- far in excess of the enron fraud- and affecting EVERYONE because EVERYONE is forced to pay taxes-- is far worse a crime. Hell, social security alone has destroyed the retirements of far more people than Enron-- something on the order of 3 trillion dollars wasted by that program.
Merely letting people have that money to do with as they wish would have resulted in a far more effective solution to the perceived problem of poverty in retired people.
But socialists, ever ignorant of economics, will always endorse government programs that cause poverty-- either because they agree with the real agenda behind them (which is CONTROL over people, eg tyranny) or because they are too stupid to realize they don't work.
You'd think the collapse of the USSR and the relative poor performance of europe's economy -- hell you live there! -- would be a clue, but apparently it isn't.
Furthermore, this idea that taxes are "taking responsibility for your own actions" is offensive.
If the government was using those taxes to clean up the environment, or something then MAYBE you would have a case (but only if you could show that I wouldn't financially support such a plan without government FORCING me to.)
Actually, I take total responsibility for my actions and don't want the governments "help" -- government is pretty much everywhere an unelected oppressive regime that puts on puppet elections every couple years (being sure to run news tories about how the iraqi people get to vote and how false those elections are) that goes around stealing money from people by force and wasting it on whores and whisky and petty programs to keep them in power.
All governments, almost, are as corrupt as the soviet union was, run for the smae puprose, and evil for the same reasons.
The only difference is they haven't destroyed their economy- YET. The europeans with thier high tax rates are pretty close-- you wonder why all the innovation is done in america? But the US isn't that far behind.
Yep, you are ignorant. I'm not getting taken to the cleaners by GM or Shell-- I've never done business with them.
And any large company in america would never allow wasting money on whores. Politicians do because they aren't accountable to anyone. Companies don't because the shareholders wouldn't stand for it.
AS to pollution, the government is FAR AND AWAY The single largest polluter in the country. REduce the size of government by %20 and you would cut more pollution than the EPA has cut in TOTAL in its entire existence.)
But then, those are facts, and liberals prefer myths-- and ridiculing people who point out the facts to actual scientifically based environmental policy.
Sorry, but your whole position is based on ignorance.
First off, the average person in washington pays over %50 of their salary in taxes-- not because they are "Rich" but because the tax burden is pretty high.
You hadn't figured out that your total tax burden is more than just what you pay in your BASE income taxes, did you?
Furthermore, you talk about "paying your fair share" but on just the federal taxes the highest rate is 4 times the lowest rate.
IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.
This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.
Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.
But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)
But no, you want ot tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.
You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.
And Magnanimousness has nothing to do with it-- those taxes don't HELP ANYONE. They hurt people-- so when you want to tax people to help the poor- you're actually CREATING POVERTY.
Course to realize that you'd have to understand some economics, and your party will be sure to keep your head full of ignorant contradictions.
But that also means you'll always be poor. To become wealthy you have to reconcile those contradictions and learn how wealth is created- when you do that, you'll realize that the liberal agenda is to create a massive poor underclass to keep them in power, and in effect go the direction of the soviet union where the political elites are wealthily and everyone else is poor. (Which is why they hate the rich-- those who are capable are threatening to those who want unearned wealth based on political status rather than ability.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're saying the "Green party" isn't green?
Uh, ok, if that's the case then you're right.
Yeah, we all know that always works! Let's just disregard the vast discrepency in the ability for an individual versus major polluting corporations in sustaining a legal battle.
Funny how people seem to have no problem doing it now-- especially for thing that affect more than one person-- you get a couple you have a class action lawsuit and they go to town.
The lawyers do it for a cut of the check and if they make their case then great.
Problem is they have to actually show damages.
But when people can seriously sue McDonalds for making their kids fat, I think the bar might be too low, not too high!
Unfortunately its economically profitable to keep the forests producing trees every generation, and the oceans full of fish, and so the technology will be developed by these industries to protect the environment-- DESPITE all the terrorism and anti-environmental activities of the "environmentalists"
Monopolies? Hah! I love these broad sweeping generalizations-- means you don't know fuck all about the facts of the sitution.
You need to read some writings of an economist that show how monopolies have a hard time surviving.
If there's great power alternatives , that are economically viable, how are "monopolies" keeping them down?
They aren't! Ballard Power in vancouver BC is working on a fuel cell for a car. I'm considering using it on my boat. Course I'm also considering a new electric motor that is ideal for the situation, and if I don't get rid of the diesel, I'll use bio-diesel which isn't mined but made from vegetable oil. Course its $2.50 a gallon so until it comes down in price, I'll use the dinosaur stuff.
Why? Cause of pollution? HELL NO. Cause diesels on boats are a reliable engine compared to gas, but a fuel cell would be even better, and allow for much longer range when coupled wiht solar and wind power. biodiesel? Because it smells better when operating than regular diesel.
I'm all for the environment but all opposed to you forcing people to live by your hippy dippy bullshit lifestyle. Especially when its based on such ignorance-- the only reason I can't go buy a ballard fuel cell right now is that it takes time to get the cost of manufacture down.
They have hundreds of millions of dollars from the "Evil monopoly car companies" that you hate and from energy companies that you claim are shutting them down-- and they make great progress, but expecting them to exceed Moores law in a non-electronics space is pretty absurd.
In other words, you're ignorant.
Yep, thanks for proving it.
Its a meaningless phrase that nobody can define without resorting to:
"Sustainable growth is a pattern of growth that is sustainable".
A circular definition proves there is no real one.
Hey dude, I'm sure you haven't noticed, but the economy is WRECKED.
IT would have been a lot more robust and had no problems with a few companies failing and the terrorism issue if it weren't for the onerous government regulation and taxation you idiots impose on it.
The proof of free market economics is that it is still good, despite doing all you can to destroy it.
Maybe you don't understand economics.
Except that your car has never been splattered by a squirrel and anyone driving like an idiot in any car is just as much as an idiot, and you really just hate SUVs because they are a status symbol rather than for any environmental excuse...
Notice how the environmentalists always lie about how much forest there is-- its cause any forest in which a human has farted is immediately decared NON-FOREST development by them.
At current trends, we'll be having to fight forests off from invading the cities while they run around saying there is no such thing as a forest any more!
I hope we go into civil war in a few year- throw off this repressive regime of do-gooder idiots who want to control everyones actions and thoughts and oppose human rights and don't mind killing people in the name of "saving" trees.
Get back to the america that the founders called for in the declaration of independence.
Don't worry, that won't stop the socialists from trying to pass laws requiring the use of recycled paper.
After all, if its bad for the environment, they're all for it! That's why they're called "environmentalists".
Uh, you're such an idiot. I have never submitted an article to slashdot, so how could I care if they never published it?
Sheesh. Yet another troll without an argument to make, but lots of names to call people.
Really impresseive.
Nope
Don't try to dodge the truth by LYING about what your platform actually says!
Its so pathetic, Nadar created his own platform to run on-- but the official party platform is there for everyone to see.
The funny thing is, you think military spending is half the federal spending, it isn't.
You guys just believe what you want, irregardless of the facts.
No wonder you don't stand behind your own platform.
Libertarians support the abolition of prescription requirements for the purchase of medications.
Yep, its true. I have a friend who is dying of a disease that is treatable. My friend was in an experimental program and got to try a drug (that is save in humans, is proscribed for other diseases with no problems, but not authorized for treating this particular disease.) The drug worked really well.
But now my friend may DIE because she cannot get this life saving drug because it is not authorized by the FDA for thier particular disease.
I think DOCTORS are the ones that should give such advice, and individuals are the ones who are responsible for what drugs they take- not paper pushers who are not accountable for the DEATH they cause.
You got a problem with that?
Libertarians oppose the right of parents to teach religion to their kids. (I'm really not making these things up; this is actually in their platform.)
this is a flat out lie
Libertarians call for an immediate end to various municipal and state bans on smoking in public places. *cough* *cough*
You socialists are starting to ban them in PRIVATE HOMES.
Anyway, yeah, anyone who wants to open a restaurant can either have smoking ban, or allow their customers to smoke. you don't like it, don't go there
You oppose libertarians because you oppose liberty-- you want to decide what people can do and not let them make their own choices, and that's fascist. Oh, and you're a liar.
If you actually supported human rights, you'd vote libertarian, its the only party that does support them.
I'm skipping the rest of your message, assuming its just as full of crap as this part.
Yes, effectively, Socialist/socialism, Communism, Liberalism and Democrats are all labels for people who advocate the SAME THING.
Since the "liberals" coopted the name liberalism, the classical liberals (the ones that founded this country) have started calling themselves libertarians.
"Green" is just another word for "Communist"... only instead of the lie of "stop being oppressed by the rich", that old style communists use, they use the "those rich corporate bastards are polluting, vote for us and we'll clean the environment"
Even though they propose nothing that would actually improve the environment in their platform, other than just empty claims to do it.
Of COURSE that's an oxymoron. ALL Libertarians and libertarians believe in capitalism.
Socialists, having had the name "communism" become unusable, and "liberal" being diluted from the pure socialism they want, now go by a lot of label, and will coopt label-- any socialist who calls himself a libertarian is a LIAR.
Socialism at its core, violates the NOIF which is the core principle of libertarianism. You CANNOT have socialism without initiating force against people in order to violate their human rights- and you can't have libertarianism if you do.
They are diametrically opposed.
Anyone who says otherwise, is selling a lie.
This is the old saw of people who can't handle logic, can't do math, and want to believe their religious beliefs despite the facts.
Economics is not perfect, but it is a science, and one set of theories have been proven over the last 100 years to be predictive, both forward and backward in time.
Try reading "Economics in one easy lesson" or taking a basic economics course.
Rather than getting your economics education from people who can't do basic math. (EG Democrats)
Here's a simple lesson for you:
http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.htm
Uh, dude, read the article I linked at before making your claims. They are backed there.
You aren't a lawyer, by the way, if you were you'd know you can't sue the government-- or you can, but your case will be thrown out almost all the time.
watermelon is a great word.
The astounding thing is that they advocate the continuation of drug crimianlization but not hte "war on drugs" and want to destroy all the companies in the country (but call it making them employee owned.)
Just like their environmental policies these are things that will do the opposite of what they claim to do.
AS a business owner, if I was forced to give my business to the employees, I'd shut it down. Course we saw how that went in russia- those who shut down businesses rather than let them get nationalized were slaughtered for "Stealing" from the public.
Uh, dude, the review was BASED on the green party platform!
Did you even read the article I linked to? I guess not.
BTW- there are two Green Party US's out there, he's explicit about which platform he's reviewing, and the platform is still the same as it was in 2000.
You really should have read the article-- I'm not saying the companies will be destroyed because they are polluting- the vast majority of companies don't pollute.
But the greens want them ALL DESTROYED anyway! ITs in their platform! Forcible elimination of large companies, incentives for medium companies (And if that doesn't work, force.).
Something about making the proletariat own the means of production, and we all know how that works.
Next time before responding to something "not worth responding to", read the fucking article I linked to, and while you're at it, read the fucking platform you advocate so you know what the hell you're talking about.
Its all in there-- total economic devastation, and somehow that's good for the environment?
The USSR was real environmentally conscious, wasn't it?
Just because someone says they want to protect the environment doesn't excuse your stupidity when they advocate policies that will destroy it.
Check out what the greens really believe in:
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
Don't vote for a party if you think just by the name they are pro-environment.
And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
A company wrongs you, you can sue them. When the government does it, you have no recourse.
Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.
And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?
If you don't understand economics, and want to help the environment, you vote green, and your vote is an endorsement for wholesale environmental destruction.
If you DO understand economics, and you want to protect the environment, you vote libertarian.
Most geeks are actually libertarians, though the geeks on slashdot seem to be mostly socialists-- I suspect this is because most geeks don't hang out on slashdot, and mostly the slashdot is the LAN admin, Server Admin crowd (rather than computer, electrical and software engineers.)
I know, a bunch of socialists are going to scream their empty heads off about this post- but please, don't waste my time. Show how market economics supports your position. (And if you think market economics are irrelevant, then you fit the definition of "not knowing anything about economics."
This country is heading towards tyranny and socialism, and will go the way of the USSR (with a similar 58 million klilled) if we don't reign in the out of control federal government.)
Economics are a science. A Geek, should take science into account- rather than following a religion. You wouldn't look to the church to decide your OS, would you? So why look to the church (or the agnostic mysticism of socialism) to determine your economic policy?
Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Be a Geek and make a scientifically based decision.
Yep, you are an idiot.
First off, I HAVE been poor. I have been homeless and without a dollar to my name. Yet the government wasn't there and it was just lucky I didn't get seriously ill. The society I advocate is one where poor people would be far less likely to fall on those times and if they did, there would be MORE services there for them. so your little pissant comment about poverty is pathetic-- to quote the line from Platoon "Shit, you gotta be rich in the first place to even think like that".
Secondly, the monorail and the RT system under discussion HERE will NOT do anything to decrease cars on the road-- this is according to their own studies. Remember, I live in the city, you dipshit.
That you take your assumption as FACT over the statements of the people who propose the systems in question, shows you don't care about reality- you have an ideology based on bigotry and you don't care what the facts are.
In other words, you're a stupid idiot who INSISTS on staying that way.
You think I'm a lost cuase? Thats cause you're a menace to society.
And, by the way, come try and take my human rights away in person, you gutless wonder, and you'll eat lead. That you advocate something you don't have the guts to enforce shows how low you really are-- not even human.
Anyone who can laugh in the face of genocide and then continue to advocate it-- you deserve the pain you're creating for yourself.
Uh, there are other companies that make cars besides GM, geeze. I have owned cars, but never done business with GM. I deal with oil companies too- I buy gas for my car. What's your point? You don't seem to have one. You seem to be trying to say that I'm evil because I buy these products or that these companies are evil-- well, that's your bigotry so I'm not surprised you'd say that.
I can handle abstraction, you're just being an idiot, that's all.
Sorry, your logic doesn't make any sense- low gas prices are not the cause of pollution in this country, and in fact, there is very little pollution problems from private vehicles. Right or wrong, they have been constructed to minimize emissions and thus the pollution problems of the 70s are gone.
Your understanding of the facts, or your thinking is very simplistic.
These public transit facilities-- REMEMBER I LIVE IN THIS CITY!-- Will not reduce car usage by ONE SINGLE CAR. They are projected to have zero impact on the traffic situation. They will reduce the number of busses needed, allowing the busses that currently serve the downtown area to serve the suburbs instead. I love how you're commenting on public transit programs you know nothing about.
I'd be happy to respond to the whole of your argument-- if you ever made one. This is whats frustrating about you liberal types -you refuse to EVER make an argument, you just invoke names like ENRON as if doing THAT was an argument-- its not.
Never said the government had a monopoly on corruption-- just that when Enron is corrupt, it gets caught and rectified quickly. the social security fraud has been going on for 50 years- nobody has an opportunity to opt out of it, and it is a total fraud. So, when you really want corruption you have to rely on the government.
Funny how I acknowledge that companies can be immoral, but you think they can be nothing but-- and think the government-- which historically is the source of most immorality in the world, and the slaughters of more people in toto than individuals or companies combined. When you want to kill a hundred million people, you need a government- yet you love government and hate companies, wonder why.
No, it is you who are ignorant of facts, and your moral relativism is disgusting-- that is the attitude that leads to GENOCIDE.
ALL SOCIALISTS ARE IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS-- and as a result, they kill millions if not tens of millions of people when they have the power.
That's not dogma, that's scientific fact. IF you knew anything about economics, you'd understand why I say this, but you don't, so its no wonder you're not listening.
I've come to expect nothing more from socialists but such idiotic soundbites and non-arguments.
The truth is, the profit motive has done more to protect human rights than any government EVER has. The violation of human rights is the sole purpose of government, and there is not a government on this planet that has not violated more human rights than even the WORST corporation.
Maybe GM has mistreated a couple dozen workers, but the US governments as violated the human rights of 280 million citizens- and it does more of it every month than all the companies in the country do in a year, combined.
If you really believed in human rights, you'd stop advocating their abolition.
Historically, the profit motive is the single best way to insure fairness, and quality of services at a decent price. Governments always abuse people physically, take away human rights, and insure poverty.
IF you knew the history of the USSR and Europe, you'd know this-- our poorer population group is richer than their middle classes.
In other words, you have no argument to make.
I don't mind that people are liberals-- everyone can get mislead when they are told lies.
I do mind that liberals will never construct a logical argument in defense of their positions.
Maybe this is because if they did, they'd see how wrong they are.
By the way, if you want to refute something, at least link to topics that are relevant, Ken Lay's bio is a refutation of how government services are distributed?
This is what passes for thinking for you?
Well, since GM sells cars, and I've never owned one, and Shell sells gasoline, and I haven't gone to a shell station since the era of apartheid protest, I know that I don't do business with them.
At any rate, they are irrelevant because they aren't the ones that set tax policy.
Furthermore, that you bring up ENRON, as if it MEANS ANYTHING shows that you're arguing from a position of ideology, not facts. ENRON victimized its employees, and shareholders, was caught and quickly dealt with.
The government (Which by the way, prevented uncovering the enron fraud by about 4 years due to incompetence) is at issue here.
And those gas taxes do not go to clean up pollution, as you seem to think. The government does actually, almost nothing about pollution.
Basically your position is the government can do no wrong because YOU PERSONALLY don't like big companies-- which is silly as well because without them, you wouldn't have a job.
If you want to make an arugment, make it, but invoking company names as if that sufficed as some sort of an argument doesn't cut it.
The government's mismanagmeent of money-- far in excess of the enron fraud- and affecting EVERYONE because EVERYONE is forced to pay taxes-- is far worse a crime. Hell, social security alone has destroyed the retirements of far more people than Enron-- something on the order of 3 trillion dollars wasted by that program.
Merely letting people have that money to do with as they wish would have resulted in a far more effective solution to the perceived problem of poverty in retired people.
But socialists, ever ignorant of economics, will always endorse government programs that cause poverty-- either because they agree with the real agenda behind them (which is CONTROL over people, eg tyranny) or because they are too stupid to realize they don't work.
You'd think the collapse of the USSR and the relative poor performance of europe's economy -- hell you live there! -- would be a clue, but apparently it isn't.
Furthermore, this idea that taxes are "taking responsibility for your own actions" is offensive.
If the government was using those taxes to clean up the environment, or something then MAYBE you would have a case (but only if you could show that I wouldn't financially support such a plan without government FORCING me to.)
Actually, I take total responsibility for my actions and don't want the governments "help" -- government is pretty much everywhere an unelected oppressive regime that puts on puppet elections every couple years (being sure to run news tories about how the iraqi people get to vote and how false those elections are) that goes around stealing money from people by force and wasting it on whores and whisky and petty programs to keep them in power.
All governments, almost, are as corrupt as the soviet union was, run for the smae puprose, and evil for the same reasons.
The only difference is they haven't destroyed their economy- YET. The europeans with thier high tax rates are pretty close-- you wonder why all the innovation is done in america? But the US isn't that far behind.
Yep, you are ignorant. I'm not getting taken to the cleaners by GM or Shell-- I've never done business with them.
And any large company in america would never allow wasting money on whores. Politicians do because they aren't accountable to anyone. Companies don't because the shareholders wouldn't stand for it.
AS to pollution, the government is FAR AND AWAY The single largest polluter in the country. REduce the size of government by %20 and you would cut more pollution than the EPA has cut in TOTAL in its entire existence.)
But then, those are facts, and liberals prefer myths-- and ridiculing people who point out the facts to actual scientifically based environmental policy.
Big surprise.
Sorry, but your whole position is based on ignorance.
First off, the average person in washington pays over %50 of their salary in taxes-- not because they are "Rich" but because the tax burden is pretty high.
You hadn't figured out that your total tax burden is more than just what you pay in your BASE income taxes, did you?
Furthermore, you talk about "paying your fair share" but on just the federal taxes the highest rate is 4 times the lowest rate.
IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.
This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.
Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.
But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)
But no, you want ot tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.
You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.
And Magnanimousness has nothing to do with it-- those taxes don't HELP ANYONE. They hurt people-- so when you want to tax people to help the poor- you're actually CREATING POVERTY.
Course to realize that you'd have to understand some economics, and your party will be sure to keep your head full of ignorant contradictions.
But that also means you'll always be poor. To become wealthy you have to reconcile those contradictions and learn how wealth is created- when you do that, you'll realize that the liberal agenda is to create a massive poor underclass to keep them in power, and in effect go the direction of the soviet union where the political elites are wealthily and everyone else is poor. (Which is why they hate the rich-- those who are capable are threatening to those who want unearned wealth based on political status rather than ability.)