Ask anyone who has lived in New York about pizza, or public transportation, or pretty much anything else for that matter and the conversation will eventually turn to how much better New York is than wherever it is they currently happen to be. One wonders why they don't just go back and stay there.
Pizza is Ok, although I had better while in Boston. Public transportation sucks royally with bad trains, mumbling announcements, unapologetic route-changes, rude and LOUD "fellow passengers", and ugly advertisements. Despite being on an ocean-shore (and saddling two sizable rivers), the air quality is pretty bad too.
We are renovating a newly-bought house in New Jersey, and every time I get there, I'm amazed, how much better the air is, and how much nicer people are. I mean, sales-clerks are not only polite, but also tend to know their wares!
There is a saying, that a married man need not remember his mistakes — his wife will always remind him.
Similarly, there is, it seems, hardly a need to maintain one's own travel records (such as for tax purposes) as the Government will always be ready to mail a neat envelope with 20 copies...
The only offensive part here is that although — according to TFA: "Since 2002, the government has mandated that the commercial airlines deliver this information routinely and electronically" (emphasis mine), the records aren't delivered to the citizens neither routinely (only upon request), nor electronically (20 copies by mail?). Oh, and the request, apparently, needs to be filed on bad old paper.
If there is one reason I can't wait 'till January 21st, it is the reinstatement of the Godwin's Law:
Godwin's Law/prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
With Bush in power the law got suspended and it got most fashionable to compare American Government with 3rd Reich — instead of losing the argument instantly, one gets a +5 moderation...
Not after the upcoming inauguration, one Hopes.
Does anyone have records of Gestapo mailing a German a copy of their file on them? Oh, never mind...
I have to admit, though, when I saw that 'Death to the West' [emphasis mine -mi] graphic in TFA, my first thought was that it looked pretty cool...
Your level of confidence is amazing... I must admit, I recoiled a bit from these people's desire to kill me. Or are you not from the West? A decent person would've recoiled too in that case, I think...
... and only 50% of the people will complain whilst the rest are obliged to rationalise it somehow.
I don't see Republicans complaining about Obama's plan itself, do you? The only complaint is, Bush would not have been allowed to do this sensible step without poisonous criticism both from the Democrats at home and "the world community" abroad. So, no, your attempts to rationalize it as "symmetrical" partisanship and par for the course make no sense, despite high moderation.
finally... a good idea from the Obama camp [...] Time to to get back in the space business
Imagine the amounts of mouth-foam, if Bush administration did this... Both internally (with corruption charges like yours) and abroad — viz. militarization of space.
I can watch TV stations from ohio and pennsylvania with rabbit ears...
Likewise, most shows are filmed in other states anyways...
By this logic every product/service is within the federal government's reach — because if something still was not, they would just need one person to drive across a State's border and buy it.
Fortunately, this logic is not applied to much — but it is already applied to radio and TV. Which is an outrage.
Obvious troll regarding detonating a nuclear weapon aside
There is nothing "trolling" about this point — to doubt, that Iran is trying to obtain a nuclear weapon is to deny the obvious...
you missed the part where I said that the Government of Iran can get whatever they want, whenever they want.
He did not miss it. You missed his point, that while, yes, they can get anything, they'll have to pay higher price for it, which, in turn, means, they'll be getting less of it.
They're not being bribed, they're being violently coerced.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can get by commanding genuine support of 30%, bribing another 30%, an violently suppressing the restless 2%, would, actually, rise up against you. Not being supported by the other 38% is Ok, as long as are reasonably quiet.
Being short of cash will change the above ratios — to your detriment. Which is the whole point of embargo.
I doubt, there exists another online retailer with the choice of items as wide-ranging in both domain and quality/price as Amazon's. Comparing the company with McDonald's, which offer fewer items than most other restaurants and at lower quality (though for lower price) is silly.
Not in this context. The term "central planning" refers to totalitarian states that centrally control all economic development. That is simply not the case here.
I know, what "central planning" means — and I maintain, that it does not have to be governmental. Nor is it limited to totalitarian states (though one can argue, that deliberately bringing it into being is a measure of totalitarianism).
The Federal Government, at the time, knew that a government-implemented solution would be inefficient and ineffective. So a compromise was reached
Yep. A single company was given a monopoly over a huge and lucrative new market... And you are defending that as a wise decision... As Rahm Emmanuel is on record quipping, you should never let a good crisis go to waste. Illiberal politicians of 1930ies didn't waste the Great Depression, and now their brethren are set to saddle us with Internet-era federal monopoly.
America had the most reliable phone system in the world for nearly a century.
Somehow, America was able to achieve the same sort of leadership in other areas — such as railway, for example — without giving a single company a monopoly... You'll need to present evidence, that our phone system's success was thanks to, rather than in spite of AT&T's monopoly.
I, on the other hand, just need to remind, that such monopolies are unfair regardless of whether they are efficient or not — America's Capitalism is derived not from efficiency, but from inalienable rights of people to pursue happiness by any means (not harmful to others right to same), including engaging in business activity. That this Capitalism happens to be the most efficient way to evolve also, is just gravy on top...
Legally barring competition to AT&T, as the federal government did in the 1930ies, was a gross violation of freedom regardless of whether or not that was the most efficient way to build national phone grid. And even that efficiency is doubtful.
Judge Greene erred in his understanding of technology, and the relevance of the old-line telcos in the packet-switched world we have today.
Oh, yes, it was that judge's fault. But there was no problem placing the regulation of the entire telephone service in the hands of a handful of bureaucrats for decades. Nor was there anything dangerous handing a decision over the break-up of a multi-billion dollar company to on judge either. People defending past Statism are quite amazing...
The buildout itself was planned and executed by AT&T, not Congress.
It does not have to be Congress to be "central". As long as it is a monopoly, it qualifies as "central planning".
Good regulation, not central planning.
Good?!? You, actually, consider AT&T's monopoly — which, you know, had to be forcibly broken up decades later — an example of "good regulation"? Wow...
I've read the link in your sig, and if for some reason you're concerned that there will be a difference in the Middle East policy of the Obama administration
Which part of the my current sig could possibly be related to Middle East policy or any other aspect of foreign policy at all? Yes, there may or may not be concerns — as with any new President — but nothing on that page talks about anything remotely related to anything abroad...
I assure you there won't be.
Barack Hussein? Is this you?! No?.. Then what the fook am I to do with your worthless "assurance"?
Yeah, they don't like Israel, we get it. But I honestly think that most would
I would've asked for facts to back up this opinion, but it is unrelated to "hypocrisy" charge, so whatever...
It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't --
Someone else already pointed out the silliness of that argument.
No, they didn't: "Tell me, how does opposing the establishment of Israel incompatible with opposing its unlawful expansion or its treatment of Palestinians?"
The answer is very simple and was already given in this thread. Israel's enemy's reject the country's right to exist, and is actively working on ending this existence. That existence was brought about by, among other things, a UN resolution — the very first one on the subject of Israel. It is perfectly logical, clean, legal, and moral for Israel to pay no attention to subsequent UN-resolutions, which concern Israel's interaction with its enemies, until the said enemies accept that very first UN-resolution.
A particular aspect of Israel's policy over the decades of war may or may not be right. But UN-resolutions remain irrelevant to that, until, once again, Israel's enemies accept the very first one.
As long as you follow only the rules you want to, you have no right to insist that anyone else follow them, period.
That's childish nonsense. This is not a game, but a matter of life and death — for Israel. If the enemy wants you dead, you'd be an idiot to grant him any quarter. Israel's inhumanity is a sign of such idiocy, but they aren't totally crazy. Their enemy cares not for UN or similar bullshit — just look at what's happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, while the Arab League and other "respectable" enemies of Israel look the other way. Having lost "fair and square" on the battlefields of several wars in the 20th century, the Arab regimes are now trying to win with terrorism on one hand and propaganda on the other. Judging by your posts, they aren't doing so bad — despite being utterly and obviously insincere.
... but it seems quite one-sided.
Yeah, right. "One-sided" is bad, because everything has two (and equal) sides to it — or so your humanities professors told you, didn't they...
Well, sometimes, you know, life presents not "shades of gray", but a perfectly distinguishable contrast between evil black and honest white. Even if, after trying hard, you can find a spec of white on the black side, or some marring dust on the white side, it does not change the whole story. Israel's moral high ground is sky high. Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
Do you think that most Europeans' (and others') views on this conflict are completely crazy, or just very misinformed?
Very large Arab and Muslim minorities in Europe vs. vocal and strong Jewish lobby in the US is what explains the differences in attitude. Neither is and indicator of truth in itself.
I'm not posting any more here. We are done with "hypocrisy" nonsense, and the larger conflict itself will settle only — as Golda Meyer predicted decades ago — "when the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate ours".
And many Palestinians would say the same thing - if Israel left the West Bank and stopped blockading Gaza most of them would be content to leave Israel alone, even if they weren't happy about the situation.
"Many" is weaselese, which can not be substantiated. Most Palestinians would not say that, as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Hamas in the most recent elections. You see, all those subsequent UN-resolutions, some of which Israel refuses to obey, call on the State of Israel to do this-and-that. However, according to Hamas and its friends, there is no "State of Israel" — there is an evil "Zionist Entity", which temporarily occupies Northern Palestine.
Right, because demanding that other people follow the rules while at the same time violating those rules isn't hypocrisy.
It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't — until you recognize my right to exist, I'm going to ignore pleas on your behalf, even those pleas comes from the same entity, that granted my existence.
And from the other side, there's a bunch of Palestinians and an occupying military force.
Bzzz, false. 2004 called and wanted that non-argument back. In 2005 Israel left Gaza completely — and nothing has changed for the better. Nothing... Evidently, you are one of those, who (knowingly?) misunderstand, what occupation means in Hamas-speak...
But let's not get distracted from the hypocrisy of Israel's enemies, demanding the country obeys UN-resolutions, while rejecting the very first resolution establishing the country itself.
When the UN created the country, Israel demands that everyone respect that resolution.
When the UN passes resolutions that it doesn't like, it feels free to ignore them.
Yes, because those subsequent ones favor people, who reject the first one. As soon as those people accept the first one, Israel will accept the subsequent ones — natural order, is not it?
When the others point out the hypocrisy, the other people are the ones being inconsistent!
Yes, of course. There is no hypocrisy in Israel's behavior here. Only in that of her enemies.
If one subscribes to the idea that violence in the region is Israel's own doing, obviously the dead girls are killed (ultimately) due to actions of Israel.
Your line of logic, although correct, is longer, than most people's attention spans, unfortunately. They see a dead child on a screen and blame whoever's weapon killed him. That's it...
For crying out loud, Americans have elected a Vice President — chosen, supposedly, for his "foreign policy expertise" — despite his saying, on national TV the following utter senility:
When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."
The above statement was wrong on so many levels, but almost nobody noticed — none of his supporters, and very few of his opponents.
And you might notice those girls were Palestinians.
That's the point. Had I linked to any Israeli victim of terrorism, some dumbass would've come out from somewhere to debate, that it is all Israel's own fault, that they shouldn't have built the country in "somebody else's desert", or that they should've just died in the face of opposition, etc. This way, there is no such distraction.
Or, at least, it is much harder to make — blaming the deaths of Palestinian girls from a Palestinian-fired rocket on Zionist Entity is, of course, possible — had it not been for the occupation, there would've been no need for rockets, so there — but stretches credulity beyond most people's BS-meters. I'm sure, this explanation is being offered inside Gaza and, maybe, West Bank, but it would not work elsewhere. Or so one hopes...
Take it up with the UN. The UN created Israel as I recall.
Does not stop Israel-bashers from demanding, that: "Israel respect UN-resolutions". That the country's enemies refuse to accept this very first resolution on the subject is rarely noticed.
Slashdot Mirror
Pizza is Ok, although I had better while in Boston. Public transportation sucks royally with bad trains, mumbling announcements, unapologetic route-changes, rude and LOUD "fellow passengers", and ugly advertisements. Despite being on an ocean-shore (and saddling two sizable rivers), the air quality is pretty bad too.
We are renovating a newly-bought house in New Jersey, and every time I get there, I'm amazed, how much better the air is, and how much nicer people are. I mean, sales-clerks are not only polite, but also tend to know their wares!
That "Democrats" keyword next to this story is quite justified...
Is not ending the correct term?
There is a saying, that a married man need not remember his mistakes — his wife will always remind him.
Similarly, there is, it seems, hardly a need to maintain one's own travel records (such as for tax purposes) as the Government will always be ready to mail a neat envelope with 20 copies...
The only offensive part here is that although — according to TFA: "Since 2002, the government has mandated that the commercial airlines deliver this information routinely and electronically " (emphasis mine), the records aren't delivered to the citizens neither routinely (only upon request), nor electronically (20 copies by mail?). Oh, and the request, apparently, needs to be filed on bad old paper.
Time for FOIA-2.0...
If there is one reason I can't wait 'till January 21st, it is the reinstatement of the Godwin's Law:
With Bush in power the law got suspended and it got most fashionable to compare American Government with 3rd Reich — instead of losing the argument instantly, one gets a +5 moderation...
Not after the upcoming inauguration, one Hopes.
Does anyone have records of Gestapo mailing a German a copy of their file on them? Oh, never mind...
Your level of confidence is amazing... I must admit, I recoiled a bit from these people's desire to kill me . Or are you not from the West? A decent person would've recoiled too in that case, I think...
I don't see Republicans complaining about Obama's plan itself, do you? The only complaint is, Bush would not have been allowed to do this sensible step without poisonous criticism both from the Democrats at home and "the world community" abroad. So, no, your attempts to rationalize it as "symmetrical" partisanship and par for the course make no sense, despite high moderation.
Imagine the amounts of mouth-foam, if Bush administration did this... Both internally (with corruption charges like yours) and abroad — viz. militarization of space.
And you, probably, want a Diesel, rather than gasoline one for anything but very occasional use.
By this logic every product/service is within the federal government's reach — because if something still was not, they would just need one person to drive across a State's border and buy it.
Fortunately, this logic is not applied to much — but it is already applied to radio and TV. Which is an outrage.
Yes... Not entirely unlike the speed limits put in place on national highways after the Interstate grid was built.
There is nothing "trolling" about this point — to doubt, that Iran is trying to obtain a nuclear weapon is to deny the obvious...
He did not miss it. You missed his point, that while, yes, they can get anything, they'll have to pay higher price for it, which, in turn, means, they'll be getting less of it.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can get by commanding genuine support of 30%, bribing another 30%, an violently suppressing the restless 2%, would, actually, rise up against you. Not being supported by the other 38% is Ok, as long as are reasonably quiet.
Being short of cash will change the above ratios — to your detriment. Which is the whole point of embargo.
I doubt, there exists another online retailer with the choice of items as wide-ranging in both domain and quality/price as Amazon's. Comparing the company with McDonald's, which offer fewer items than most other restaurants and at lower quality (though for lower price) is silly.
I know, what "central planning" means — and I maintain, that it does not have to be governmental. Nor is it limited to totalitarian states (though one can argue, that deliberately bringing it into being is a measure of totalitarianism).
Yep. A single company was given a monopoly over a huge and lucrative new market... And you are defending that as a wise decision... As Rahm Emmanuel is on record quipping, you should never let a good crisis go to waste. Illiberal politicians of 1930ies didn't waste the Great Depression, and now their brethren are set to saddle us with Internet-era federal monopoly.
Somehow, America was able to achieve the same sort of leadership in other areas — such as railway, for example — without giving a single company a monopoly... You'll need to present evidence, that our phone system's success was thanks to, rather than in spite of AT&T's monopoly.
I, on the other hand, just need to remind, that such monopolies are unfair regardless of whether they are efficient or not — America's Capitalism is derived not from efficiency, but from inalienable rights of people to pursue happiness by any means (not harmful to others right to same), including engaging in business activity. That this Capitalism happens to be the most efficient way to evolve also, is just gravy on top...
Legally barring competition to AT&T, as the federal government did in the 1930ies, was a gross violation of freedom regardless of whether or not that was the most efficient way to build national phone grid. And even that efficiency is doubtful.
Oh, yes, it was that judge's fault. But there was no problem placing the regulation of the entire telephone service in the hands of a handful of bureaucrats for decades. Nor was there anything dangerous handing a decision over the break-up of a multi-billion dollar company to on judge either. People defending past Statism are quite amazing...
It does not have to be Congress to be "central". As long as it is a monopoly, it qualifies as "central planning".
Good?!? You, actually, consider AT&T's monopoly — which, you know, had to be forcibly broken up decades later — an example of "good regulation"? Wow...
Don't be picky. The research accelerates as the intelligence evolves.
Which part of the my current sig could possibly be related to Middle East policy or any other aspect of foreign policy at all? Yes, there may or may not be concerns — as with any new President — but nothing on that page talks about anything remotely related to anything abroad...
Barack Hussein? Is this you?! No?.. Then what the fook am I to do with your worthless "assurance"?
I would've asked for facts to back up this opinion, but it is unrelated to "hypocrisy" charge, so whatever...
No, they didn't: "Tell me, how does opposing the establishment of Israel incompatible with opposing its unlawful expansion or its treatment of Palestinians?"
The answer is very simple and was already given in this thread. Israel's enemy's reject the country's right to exist, and is actively working on ending this existence. That existence was brought about by, among other things, a UN resolution — the very first one on the subject of Israel. It is perfectly logical, clean, legal, and moral for Israel to pay no attention to subsequent UN-resolutions, which concern Israel's interaction with its enemies, until the said enemies accept that very first UN-resolution.
A particular aspect of Israel's policy over the decades of war may or may not be right. But UN-resolutions remain irrelevant to that, until, once again, Israel's enemies accept the very first one.
That's childish nonsense. This is not a game, but a matter of life and death — for Israel. If the enemy wants you dead, you'd be an idiot to grant him any quarter. Israel's inhumanity is a sign of such idiocy, but they aren't totally crazy. Their enemy cares not for UN or similar bullshit — just look at what's happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, while the Arab League and other "respectable" enemies of Israel look the other way. Having lost "fair and square" on the battlefields of several wars in the 20th century, the Arab regimes are now trying to win with terrorism on one hand and propaganda on the other. Judging by your posts, they aren't doing so bad — despite being utterly and obviously insincere.
Yeah, right. "One-sided" is bad, because everything has two (and equal) sides to it — or so your humanities professors told you, didn't they...
Well, sometimes, you know, life presents not "shades of gray", but a perfectly distinguishable contrast between evil black and honest white. Even if, after trying hard, you can find a spec of white on the black side, or some marring dust on the white side, it does not change the whole story. Israel's moral high ground is sky high. Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
Very large Arab and Muslim minorities in Europe vs. vocal and strong Jewish lobby in the US is what explains the differences in attitude. Neither is and indicator of truth in itself.
I'm not posting any more here. We are done with "hypocrisy" nonsense, and the larger conflict itself will settle only — as Golda Meyer predicted decades ago — "when the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate ours ".
"Many" is weaselese, which can not be substantiated. Most Palestinians would not say that, as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Hamas in the most recent elections. You see, all those subsequent UN-resolutions, some of which Israel refuses to obey, call on the State of Israel to do this-and-that. However, according to Hamas and its friends, there is no "State of Israel" — there is an evil "Zionist Entity", which temporarily occupies Northern Palestine.
It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't — until you recognize my right to exist, I'm going to ignore pleas on your behalf, even those pleas comes from the same entity, that granted my existence.
Bzzz, false. 2004 called and wanted that non-argument back. In 2005 Israel left Gaza completely — and nothing has changed for the better. Nothing... Evidently, you are one of those, who (knowingly?) misunderstand, what occupation means in Hamas-speak...
But let's not get distracted from the hypocrisy of Israel's enemies, demanding the country obeys UN-resolutions, while rejecting the very first resolution establishing the country itself.
Because we need telephone to reach the poor and the rural communities... Because market is failing to address this need...
We must centrally plan this vital piece of national infrastructure. (Oh, and Libertarians are all lunatics.)
Yes, because those subsequent ones favor people, who reject the first one. As soon as those people accept the first one, Israel will accept the subsequent ones — natural order, is not it?
Yes, of course. There is no hypocrisy in Israel's behavior here. Only in that of her enemies.
Your line of logic, although correct, is longer, than most people's attention spans, unfortunately. They see a dead child on a screen and blame whoever's weapon killed him. That's it...
For crying out loud, Americans have elected a Vice President — chosen, supposedly, for his "foreign policy expertise" — despite his saying, on national TV the following utter senility:
The above statement was wrong on so many levels, but almost nobody noticed — none of his supporters, and very few of his opponents.
That's the point. Had I linked to any Israeli victim of terrorism, some dumbass would've come out from somewhere to debate, that it is all Israel's own fault, that they shouldn't have built the country in "somebody else's desert", or that they should've just died in the face of opposition, etc. This way, there is no such distraction.
Or, at least, it is much harder to make — blaming the deaths of Palestinian girls from a Palestinian-fired rocket on Zionist Entity is, of course, possible — had it not been for the occupation, there would've been no need for rockets, so there — but stretches credulity beyond most people's BS-meters. I'm sure, this explanation is being offered inside Gaza and, maybe, West Bank, but it would not work elsewhere. Or so one hopes...
It would've been reasonable, if X and W were orthogonal. They aren't.
Does not stop Israel-bashers from demanding, that: "Israel respect UN-resolutions". That the country's enemies refuse to accept this very first resolution on the subject is rarely noticed.
Or a Quassam-rocket. One of those just killed two sisters aged 12 and 5.