Ya, because fear of a neocon president sure scared him away from invading Georgia.
Once again, this is a case of "bad vs. awful". Our reaction (both military moves and economic sanctions) to Georgia back then was not enough to push Russians out completely, but it kept Russia from entering Tbilisi and vanquishing the little country for good — as they were poised to do.
But when, instead of ratcheting the sanctions up, the current nincompoop sent the ignominious "Reset" button to Moscow and dropped — only two years later — what few sanctions there were in the hope, Russia will help pressure Iran, Putin was encouraged... For Russia can certainly weather two years of sanctions — a small price to pay for the jewel of Crimea.
If Google weren't afraid of "monopoly" accusations — and the resulting regulatory scrutiny — and started treating Yahoo! as a real competitor, Ms. Mayer's company would've gone the way of Radio Shack and Woolworth years ago.
I suppose, it is good for the rest of us while it lasts, but the moment Yahoo! actually does start performing (if that ever happens), Google may decide to take the gloves of...
Oct 1929 through 1940, when the war effort began really rolling. So FDR had nothing to do with it.
But was the high level of stratification due to "trickle down" at all? Or, maybe, the policy does not really have anything to do with the wealth-consolidation you decry?
What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"?
It actually didn't really start until the 80s, and if you'll recall, that era was prefaced by several recessions and double digit inflation in the 70s, a similar stoppage of wealth growth as in the 30s.
So, things were bad before the "trickle down" started? Is that what you are saying?
Just perhaps that was the stated economic policy of the Reps as they rolled back taxes on the wealthy?
If it really was "the stated policy", where is your link to the statement?
the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.
Higher taxes on the rich mean their wealth growth rate is slowed, as the flow in is slowed.
Not necessarily — it depends on how those "higher taxes" are spent. If, for example, they are given back to them (think Solyndra or Tesla motors), it may be the exact opposite.
So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?
Red-herring - the last several presidents can be shown to be both
It is not "red herring" because that's what this sub-thread is all about — when JDAustin pointed out, Obama failed to reign-in overly invasive police, an "insightful" AC countered with "trickle down economics" (which was a false "red herring" of its own, of course).
Because otherwise we'd have that paragon of politics Palin instead of Biden to make fun of?
Sarah Palin made no obvious mistakes — in fact, she anticipated Putin invasion into Crimea. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was beyond mockery from day one -1: when he claimed, that "we, along with France kicked Hezbolla out of Lebanon". Show me anything comparably stupid from Sarah Palin, I dare you...
Or perhaps that ever American loving Romney, as long as you're not 1 in 2 Americans?
I don't care, whether President loves me — I'd find it outright creepy if he did. I want him to effectively execute policy I find agreeable. Obama's only saving graces come from his failing to execute some of his disastrous plans.
Reps killed their own chances in 2008.
Whatever killed their chances (somehow vastly more people knew, what Palin spent on wardrobe than that Biden was once caught plagiarizing), it was to the detriment to the country.
tell me how we are one iota better off today with the democrat in the White House.
Your justifiable disappointment in both parties leads you to renouncing both of them equally, which is not justifiable in the slightest.
Had a Republican won, we would've still been capturing enemies to be held in Guantanamo — instead of simply killing them. Osama bin Laden would've been on trial, rather than fallen victim to extrajudicial killing.
Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine. Gaddafi — who has made amends with US after seeing the capture of Saddam Hussein on TV — would've remained in charge of Lybia, instead of that country plunging into chaos. We wouldn't have left Iraq in such haste, which would've kept ISIS in check.
Republicans and Democrats are an inbred family, sleeping together for the past three generations.
Though the less principled "centrists" or "pragmatists" of the two parties do meet in the middle like stalactites and stalagmites, as those geological phenomena they too come from opposite ends.
Trickle-down economics is essentially saying let's dump all the money up top
Whose money? Who is to do the dumping?
This is what occurred in reality [...] upper 0.5 - 1% at levels not seen since the 1940s
In 1930-40-ies we were governed by an Illiberal icon — was FDR a proponent of "trickle down"? He certainly is not denounced as such by bashers of RethugliKKKans... What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"? In fact, what makes you think, the policy was practiced at all — whatever effect it did or did not have on wealth-consolidation?
the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.
This statement implies fixed size "bucket" (which you just said is not the case) and zero-summed game — somebody's gain must be somebody else's loss, according to this logic.
What leads you to these conclusions and can you substantiate them?
Meanwhile, I can easily demonstrate, how the "hope and change" President turned out to be either incompetent or a fraud — and thus undeserving of the office, to which hysterical Illiberals have elected him — twice. My demonstration would solidly support JDAustin's comment while planing the "insightful" AC, who tried to muddle the waters with a (false) tu quoque...
If only "hopey changey" remained as unobviously wrong — and perhaps even right — the trickle-down economics, which you seem to deride without any clear reasons or citations.
The default government stance is that these things are legal, until proven illegal
That sounds reasonable — it is certainly the stance, I'd like applied to me.
This default stance clearly indicates that our government is against its people.
Huh?! Why? Where? What is the "clear" indication of this antagonism?
We live in a police state.
We are certainly witnessing increasingly assertive police. But, as one well-moderated poster inquired in an earlier discussion: "If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?"
So, if — as seems to be/.'s overwhelming opinion — it is Ok to trust FCC to determine, what's "fair", why wouldn't we place the same trust in the FBI's sense of fairness?
You alleged "exploitation" of poor people in other countries by US corporations. I asked for citations and you are replying with Saudi, Bush clan, and CIA?
That's not a citation — that's FUD. Which corporation, which country, when and how?
USA typically has a number of CIA agents working out of each of its embassies
Yes.
where they identify people who are advocating for workers rights and opposed to exploitation by the foreign corporations
Citations?
then help the oppressive dictatorships make such people disappear
The problem with the banana republic governments that are kept in power by the US military
Off-topic. I was talking about corporations and government of the same country.
using the US military to "promote America's interests" - where "America's interests" are not freedom or democracy but instead the interests of a small number of rich Americans who stand to benefit from having their corporations exploit poor people in other countries
most corporations today are global multinationals operating in all countries, and they love to make use of that by doing in the non-free countries all the evil things that they can't (as easily) do in the free countries.
First of all, America is still reasonably free. Second, the governments of those non-free countries, which may condone (and encourage) those unspecified "evil things", are even less likely to provide citizens with decent Internet access, than is Facebook.
You claim this is the best way for a corporation to get rich, but you offer no evidence to support that claim.
In a free country, there is simply no other way to get rich. That's my proof... The less free the country (down from "free" to "reasonably free"), the worse it is as corruption and crony capitalism open up opportunities for corporations to get rich in other ways.
A big news one recently was when Oracle decided the best way to riches was to take the MONEY for providing a service to the taxpayers of Portland without actually providing the service, and giving just a token piece of junk instead.
That's a rather one-sided way of describing it, but is this your argument for trusting the State government, which hired Oracle in the first place? Or for the Federal government, which made such a contract (creation of "health exchange") necessary in the first place?
But whatever the specifics of this case, I was talking about corporations getting rich by pleasing people — people, spending their own monies, rather than government officials spending those of their constituents.
The more money is spent by the government, the less free the citizens — and the more opportunities arise for unscrupulous corporations to profit unjustly. You can win a billion-dollar contract by giving a million to the official in charge of millions' of people taxes. But you can't do that selling to people directly — for that you have to actually deliver something decent, or fool people. Fortunately, fooling all the people all the time is notoriously difficult...
That they will never end up doing something that makes less money but is more evil simply because made a bad decision
Not at all. I consider neither corporate CEOs nor government bureaucrats to be omniscient. But you seem to think, only the CEOs are fallible...
PG&E was providing electricity [...] toxic waste properly and dumping it in people's drinking water instead.
Once again your example involves a corporation profiting from a special arrangement with the government... Don't you see the trend yet?
Facebook is the perfect example here - their product is private information for targetted advertising, the users aren't the customers
So long as nobody is forced to sign up, you argument is without merit.
It's easy to point the finger solely at government for those but it's also false, if the government didn't exist the companies would do the SAME things
For someone pointing out logical fallacies (real or otherwise) in other people's arguments, you are strangely susceptible to the "excluded middle". How about the government existed, but limited itself to those things enumerated in our Constitution as government's domain:
How about you learn from someone who was a Marine who knows how the system works
I'd be happy to learn from him, how to operate a weapon, but why would an average Marine know "how the system works" any better, than a software engineer, a construction worker, or a janitor?
But if you hold Marines' political savvy in such an esteem, why don't you accept their other opinions today? They are rather Conservative for one thing — do you share that too, or are you only going to quote the few cherry-picked among them?
Only as an opposition to Franco's fascism (Orwell fought in Spanish civil war) — and until he realized, that both Fascism and Socialism are merely two sides of the coin of Statism.
Whatever the Wikipedia article may say about the book, an actual quote from it says:
I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.
That anarchism may be naive, but there is certainly nothing in it about the need to confiscate money from citizens at gun-point (also lovingly referred to as "taxation") in order to build schools and otherwise "help the downtrodden".
about corporations not acting in collusion with governments
This was not really what I was talking about. But let me ask you, why is it you prefer the government side of that "collusion" you allege to be taking place? Corporation, at least, is doing it in order to bring some goods (such as bananas) to people, who want them... What's the government's excuse?
a corporation will bust your kneecaps if you demand higher wages set fire to smaller competitors
Assault and arson are both bona-fide crimes, that a government has a right and duty to prosecute. I wish, the government busied itself with those responsibilities only...
elect... and make them accountable to you
Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them... Great example.
we just passed net neutrality
A major intrusion into property rights and violation of one's freedom to operate one's business the way one sees fit.
we're legalizing gay marriage
A self-contradicting term akin to "meatless steak".
But I see, what you mean. Unhappy with other people's opinions and actions and unable to convince them, you seek to either simply force them to do things your way (such as pass any and all traffic through their own cables), or redefine certain terms (such as "marriage" — which all human civilizations until 20 years ago understood to mean "union of different sexes").
Yes, you certainly need government's ability to compel people at gunpoint to achieve those things. Without it to back your ridiculous argument, you'd still be the laughing stock you were 10 years ago...
and marijuana
Funny, how you mix introduction of new oppressive laws with abolishing old oppressive laws together — and consider both to be good things.
me: i don't trust government. i also don't trust corporations
You are framing the question wrong. I trust both to be self-serving and greedy.
The problem is, a self-serving and greedy government official will use his existing powers to expand his control over your life and money. As Thomas Jefferson observed back in 1788: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
On the other hand, for a corporation — operating in a reasonably free country — the best way to riches is through providing services and/or making goods, that people are willing to pay for.
This is why I want this country to remain "reasonably free" — where the above-stated means of enrichment remain competitive.
why is there this irrational tribalism at work in the world where expressing an opinion against something automatically means i am for something else
Because certain things are exclusive of certain other things. Liberty vs. expanding government control is one example.
Re:Being disconnected might be good...
on
Facebook's Colonies
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
If voting moves entirely online
Begging the question, huh?
Despite being perfectly possible technically voting didn't move to telephone. And even if it did, AT&T — for all the love I have for it — would not dream of impeding such voting even when it was a government-sanctioned monopoly.
Both privately owned gated communities and government housing projects are also in a position to prevent you from getting outside the gate on the day of the poll — does this mean, it is better to be homeless than to live in such a place?
Re:Being disconnected might be good...
on
Facebook's Colonies
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Third world is bad, Orwellian world is worse.
Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
No, he was worried about the power of government — an evil necessary only to protect citizens from crime and injustice... Today's Illiberals would've hated the man (as a "tea-bagging fucktard" or some such), if it weren't for those "Liberals" of the past adoring him...
If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?
Your trust in the Federal Government is noted and your posting moderated up. You are also eligible for one additional beet-ration this month. Congratulations, comrade, and keep up the good work of pro-government shilling.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, this is a case of "bad vs. awful". Our reaction (both military moves and economic sanctions) to Georgia back then was not enough to push Russians out completely, but it kept Russia from entering Tbilisi and vanquishing the little country for good — as they were poised to do.
But when, instead of ratcheting the sanctions up, the current nincompoop sent the ignominious "Reset" button to Moscow and dropped — only two years later — what few sanctions there were in the hope, Russia will help pressure Iran, Putin was encouraged... For Russia can certainly weather two years of sanctions — a small price to pay for the jewel of Crimea.
If Google weren't afraid of "monopoly" accusations — and the resulting regulatory scrutiny — and started treating Yahoo! as a real competitor, Ms. Mayer's company would've gone the way of Radio Shack and Woolworth years ago.
I suppose, it is good for the rest of us while it lasts, but the moment Yahoo! actually does start performing (if that ever happens), Google may decide to take the gloves of...
But was the high level of stratification due to "trickle down" at all? Or, maybe, the policy does not really have anything to do with the wealth-consolidation you decry?
So, things were bad before the "trickle down" started? Is that what you are saying?
If it really was "the stated policy", where is your link to the statement?
Not necessarily — it depends on how those "higher taxes" are spent. If, for example, they are given back to them (think Solyndra or Tesla motors), it may be the exact opposite.
In 2009 the top 50% of income-tax payers paid 97.75% of the total tax. Do you suppose, the bottom 50% could pay much less than 2.25% — and would it help them, even if it could be arranged?
So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?
It is not "red herring" because that's what this sub-thread is all about — when JDAustin pointed out, Obama failed to reign-in overly invasive police, an "insightful" AC countered with "trickle down economics" (which was a false "red herring" of its own, of course).
Sarah Palin made no obvious mistakes — in fact, she anticipated Putin invasion into Crimea. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was beyond mockery from day one -1: when he claimed, that "we, along with France kicked Hezbolla out of Lebanon". Show me anything comparably stupid from Sarah Palin, I dare you...
I don't care, whether President loves me — I'd find it outright creepy if he did. I want him to effectively execute policy I find agreeable. Obama's only saving graces come from his failing to execute some of his disastrous plans.
Whatever killed their chances (somehow vastly more people knew, what Palin spent on wardrobe than that Biden was once caught plagiarizing), it was to the detriment to the country.
Because of you sir, I think Slashdot needs a new moderation selection: "Exactly".
Me too!
Your justifiable disappointment in both parties leads you to renouncing both of them equally, which is not justifiable in the slightest.
Had a Republican won, we would've still been capturing enemies to be held in Guantanamo — instead of simply killing them. Osama bin Laden would've been on trial, rather than fallen victim to extrajudicial killing .
Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine. Gaddafi — who has made amends with US after seeing the capture of Saddam Hussein on TV — would've remained in charge of Lybia, instead of that country plunging into chaos. We wouldn't have left Iraq in such haste, which would've kept ISIS in check.
Domestically we would not have had the grossly unpopular Obamacare forced upon us with such vigor, most people — proponents and detractors alike — could not even understand the proposed law before the voting took place.
Though the less principled "centrists" or "pragmatists" of the two parties do meet in the middle like stalactites and stalagmites, as those geological phenomena they too come from opposite ends.
I am saying, you need to subscribe to my newsletter.
Whose money? Who is to do the dumping?
In 1930-40-ies we were governed by an Illiberal icon — was FDR a proponent of "trickle down"? He certainly is not denounced as such by bashers of RethugliKKKans... What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"? In fact, what makes you think, the policy was practiced at all — whatever effect it did or did not have on wealth-consolidation?
This statement implies fixed size "bucket" (which you just said is not the case) and zero-summed game — somebody's gain must be somebody else's loss, according to this logic.
What leads you to these conclusions and can you substantiate them?
Meanwhile, I can easily demonstrate, how the "hope and change" President turned out to be either incompetent or a fraud — and thus undeserving of the office, to which hysterical Illiberals have elected him — twice. My demonstration would solidly support JDAustin's comment while planing the "insightful" AC, who tried to muddle the waters with a (false) tu quoque...
That'd be all, thank you.
About as well as trickle-down economics.
If only "hopey changey" remained as unobviously wrong — and perhaps even right — the trickle-down economics, which you seem to deride without any clear reasons or citations.
That sounds reasonable — it is certainly the stance, I'd like applied to me.
Huh?! Why? Where? What is the "clear" indication of this antagonism?
We are certainly witnessing increasingly assertive police. But, as one well-moderated poster inquired in an earlier discussion: "If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?"
So, if — as seems to be /.'s overwhelming opinion — it is Ok to trust FCC to determine, what's "fair", why wouldn't we place the same trust in the FBI's sense of fairness?
You alleged "exploitation" of poor people in other countries by US corporations. I asked for citations and you are replying with Saudi, Bush clan, and CIA?
That's not a citation — that's FUD. Which corporation, which country, when and how?
Yes.
Citations?
Citations?
Didn't think so...
I was referring to the use of the IRS as an anti-opposition weapon by a sitting President.
Off-topic. I was talking about corporations and government of the same country.
Citations needed. Badly...
First of all, America is still reasonably free. Second, the governments of those non-free countries, which may condone (and encourage) those unspecified "evil things", are even less likely to provide citizens with decent Internet access, than is Facebook.
In a free country, there is simply no other way to get rich. That's my proof... The less free the country (down from "free" to "reasonably free"), the worse it is as corruption and crony capitalism open up opportunities for corporations to get rich in other ways.
That's a rather one-sided way of describing it, but is this your argument for trusting the State government, which hired Oracle in the first place? Or for the Federal government, which made such a contract (creation of "health exchange") necessary in the first place?
But whatever the specifics of this case, I was talking about corporations getting rich by pleasing people — people, spending their own monies, rather than government officials spending those of their constituents.
The more money is spent by the government, the less free the citizens — and the more opportunities arise for unscrupulous corporations to profit unjustly. You can win a billion-dollar contract by giving a million to the official in charge of millions' of people taxes. But you can't do that selling to people directly — for that you have to actually deliver something decent, or fool people. Fortunately, fooling all the people all the time is notoriously difficult...
Not at all. I consider neither corporate CEOs nor government bureaucrats to be omniscient. But you seem to think, only the CEOs are fallible...
Once again your example involves a corporation profiting from a special arrangement with the government... Don't you see the trend yet?
So long as nobody is forced to sign up, you argument is without merit.
For someone pointing out logical fallacies (real or otherwise) in other people's arguments, you are strangely susceptible to the "excluded middle". How about the government existed, but limited itself to those things enumerated in our Constitution as government's domain:
Nothing else.
I'd be happy to learn from him, how to operate a weapon, but why would an average Marine know "how the system works" any better, than a software engineer, a construction worker, or a janitor?
But if you hold Marines' political savvy in such an esteem, why don't you accept their other opinions today? They are rather Conservative for one thing — do you share that too, or are you only going to quote the few cherry-picked among them?
Only as an opposition to Franco's fascism (Orwell fought in Spanish civil war) — and until he realized, that both Fascism and Socialism are merely two sides of the coin of Statism.
Whatever the Wikipedia article may say about the book, an actual quote from it says:
That anarchism may be naive, but there is certainly nothing in it about the need to confiscate money from citizens at gun-point (also lovingly referred to as "taxation") in order to build schools and otherwise "help the downtrodden".
Abroad. I was talking about the threat of government vs. the threat of corporations of the same country.
Wow. This is the second time I am reminded of Hans Christian Andersen on one day...
This was not really what I was talking about. But let me ask you, why is it you prefer the government side of that "collusion" you allege to be taking place? Corporation, at least, is doing it in order to bring some goods (such as bananas) to people, who want them... What's the government's excuse?
Assault and arson are both bona-fide crimes, that a government has a right and duty to prosecute. I wish, the government busied itself with those responsibilities only...
Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them... Great example.
A major intrusion into property rights and violation of one's freedom to operate one's business the way one sees fit.
A self-contradicting term akin to "meatless steak".
But I see, what you mean. Unhappy with other people's opinions and actions and unable to convince them, you seek to either simply force them to do things your way (such as pass any and all traffic through their own cables), or redefine certain terms (such as "marriage" — which all human civilizations until 20 years ago understood to mean "union of different sexes").
Yes, you certainly need government's ability to compel people at gunpoint to achieve those things. Without it to back your ridiculous argument, you'd still be the laughing stock you were 10 years ago...
Funny, how you mix introduction of new oppressive laws with abolishing old oppressive laws together — and consider both to be good things.
You are framing the question wrong. I trust both to be self-serving and greedy.
The problem is, a self-serving and greedy government official will use his existing powers to expand his control over your life and money. As Thomas Jefferson observed back in 1788: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
On the other hand, for a corporation — operating in a reasonably free country — the best way to riches is through providing services and/or making goods, that people are willing to pay for.
This is why I want this country to remain "reasonably free" — where the above-stated means of enrichment remain competitive.
Because certain things are exclusive of certain other things. Liberty vs. expanding government control is one example.
Begging the question, huh?
Despite being perfectly possible technically voting didn't move to telephone. And even if it did, AT&T — for all the love I have for it — would not dream of impeding such voting even when it was a government-sanctioned monopoly.
Both privately owned gated communities and government housing projects are also in a position to prevent you from getting outside the gate on the day of the poll — does this mean, it is better to be homeless than to live in such a place?
Meanwhile the loving government can punish an entire town with make-work road repairs — would you accept that as an argument against government-maintained roads?
Despite already well-known in his times mega-corporations (like Standard Oil), Orwell was not particularly concerned with them. Probably, because a corporation, however big, can not compel you to do anything at the point of a weapon.
No, he was worried about the power of government — an evil necessary only to protect citizens from crime and injustice... Today's Illiberals would've hated the man (as a "tea-bagging fucktard" or some such), if it weren't for those "Liberals" of the past adoring him...
Of course, not. If the access was provided by a greedy KKKorporation, rather than the benevolent government, it is already suspect.
And if the provided link somehow prioritizes the said KKKorporation (or anybody else), that's outright evil — better to not have any access at all.
(Gebyy zl nff...)
So, this is about my person and character flaws, huh?..
Your trust in the Federal Government is noted and your posting moderated up. You are also eligible for one additional beet-ration this month. Congratulations, comrade, and keep up the good work of pro-government shilling.
Much to Illiberals' chagrin.
I'm "frothing at the mouth" over the reintroduction of it in 2015. It was wrong then, it is wrong now...