No, I don't think this is true — what ditch-digger would prefer a ditch he dug to a pastry? But even if he did value his ditch out of some sentimental attachment, what of it?
Actually. it's the capitalists who are eroding away the wealth of the workers and farmers. Haven't you noticed the disappearance of the middle class and increasing income inequality over the last few decades?
No, I haven't. And why is such inequality even a bad thing automatically and by itself? Is Michael Phelps' ability to swim so much better than that of the rest of us alarming? Should we impose a "windfall" tax on his Olympic medals? People have equal inalienable rights, but we aren't born equal. Unless you are also prepared to cripple the strong, lobotomize the smart, and disfigure the beautiful — for equality — why would you tax the successful?
But stipulating, the said disappearance of the middle class is both real and bad, why are you accusing the Capitalists of it — and not, for example, the ever increasing government "spreading" of everybody's wealth around? Or, for another example, not the trade policies favoring the truly oppressive (Marxist) China?
It can only come from people like him who will be putting more into the system than they receive back from UBI.
His entire $51 billion can only give the 150 million of Americans, who pay no income tax today, $340... Once. As you say, most of those working would be taxed extra to further comfort the idle.
bear the brunt of the UBI burden
Ergo, my reference to the gun point, which is how all taxes are collected...
So, of course, "UBI" and other attempts to forcibly "spread the wealth" to address the non-problem of "income inequality" are foolish and oppressive. But for the uber-rich like Zuckerberg to advance them without donating a sizeable chunk of their own wealth to the needy is, in addition to those two things, also hypocritical.
Nope. It is because he was wrong. Fundamentally...
According to him, for example, 8 hours of work by a ditch-digger is equally valuable as 8 hours of an engineer or a pastry-chef. Equally valuable and therefore to be equally rewarded. As I said, wrong.
aka the progressive movement of the early 1900s that sought to correct the excesses of the gilded age.
The progressive movement of 1900 had little to do with what's known as "progressive" today. But if you are willing to defend, what those guys did, let's start with the Prohibition...:)
*boat gets fixed*
Mi: See? The boat didn't sink. Therefore, Marx was wrong.
No. The reason was Capitalism's ability to produce wealth — more than any other regime — and enough of it to keep the workers and the farmers satisfied, to the dismay of the Marxists. It is this satisfaction they've been trying to erode with varying success ever since — with made-up "outrages" over non-issues like "gender equality"... See also Marxism 2.0.
Marx never intended for his ideas to be implemented in feudal Russia or the carcass of Austria-Hungary
Marx did not propose ideas — to be implemented or not. He thought of his theories as laws of nature — like gravity — take it from someone, who was forced to study Marxism in high school and college...
His claim was, the workers' revolution is inevitable when the means of production develop beyond a certain point. That it did not actually happen in the US, UK, and other countries is proof, the asshole was a fool and wasted years of his life on a big mistake — while his wife brought up their children.
With more and more of the US population somehow being reliant on government handouts anyways, we've got communism coming in through the backdoor. Maybe we should just be honest with ourselves and just dive in head first to the Marxist experiment
Or maybe we should, now that the realization is kicking in, stop this creep up of Communism and go back to having a drastically lower involvement of government in the citizens' daily lives? Something like this, perhaps?
Sharing with journalists that there was a leak of top secret intel is just as bad as leaking top secret intel?
Use logic — it helps. If the leaker is found out, he will be dismissed from the White House for disloyalty.
But there is legal jeopardy, because — and his defense lawyer will seize on that — in releasing information to Americans, that the President himself has already disclosed to Putin.
But, hey, if no one really knows the content, why are we taking such amorphous anonymous accusations of the "leaks" as valid at all? Imagine a newspaper article accusing Hillary Clinton of intentionally leaking secrets — with the accuser being anonymous and the exact nature of the leaked information unknown... You'd be the first to ridicule such smearing... Now apply that principle evenly...
possibly it is not worth a response
You did respond. You just didn't address the sole point made in the post you responded to. Which means, you accepted it.
What I was really curious about was whether you applied the standard evenly.
Did you say "evenly"? Wow... Even if we stipulate, that Trump really did disclose something important to the Russians, he simply could not in the short time the conversation took, disclose as much, as Snowden and Manning disclosed. If we were to apply the same standards to all, that Guardian article you cited would've dripped with deadly poison in its reports about the two — and called for capital punishment for both. Instead, the paper — and others like it — consider them heroes. "Evenly" my tail...
The news is a business, and "shocking new details!!!!" is how that business makes money.
You are too cynical. They will pull punches to help a good cause — examples skipped for brevety...
Blaming the media for publishing the leaked information
I am not "blaming the media" here. I'm merely pointing out, that, if Trump really did communicate something he should not have to Lavrov, you would've heard all of the damaging details by now. Many times over. From newspapers in the mornings to Rachel Maddow in the evening. That we still do not know, what the supposedly "outrageous leak" consisted of, is a good indicator, Trump did nothing wrong...
The source is already in jeopardy after your publishing the allegation of the fact of the link. There is no additional danger to them from you also publishing the contents.
So, once again, we know, that either the leakers or the media do not consider that content damaging to Trump. Otherwise they would've printed it just as gleefully, as they printed the juicier bits of the earlier WikiLeaks document-dumps.
First of all, thank you for agreeing/conceding, Snowden and Manning really were traitors. Most refreshing...
I don't remember taking a position on that...
You replied to my post, where I called them both traitors. You didn't object to that in the slightest, saying instead: "What about Trump?". In any reasonable conversation that is sufficient to conclude, you agreed with my assessment of the two traitors, and wish to switch the topic...
First of all, thank you for agreeing/conceding, Snowden and Manning really were traitors. Most refreshing...
Now let's talk about Donald Trump's alleged "leak". Though the media exploded last week with these allegations of the fact of the leak — all citing an anonymous official present in the room — none would quote the content of it.
Why would they — after gleefully reprinting WikiLeaks for years — be so reserved all of a sudden? To protect the secret from spreading further? Nope — if Putin knows it already, there is no point in keeping quiet any more.
Which should tell any unbiased observer, nothing was actually leaked... Had they told you the contents, you would've shrugged and lost the outrage — much better to keep you in suspense. In other words, you've been played by Trump-haterz. Again.
I'm inclined to cut Snowden some slack for two reasons.
Yes, I too am willing to cut him slack — no capital punishment. 10-20 years in federal prison.
First, he took pains to release the information in as responsible a way as possible
This is simply evidence, he was well aware of the harm his releases will do to his country. And did it anyway. He may well have been sincere, but so were the Rosenbergs. It is still treason.
Like this is the first time government officials are giving themselves an exception... From cops exceeding speed limits and driving the wrong way on one-way streets, to Amtrak's WiFi blocking Apple-store and Playboy.com (screw net-neutrality), to this.
Maybe, it is time for a Constitutional amendment prescribing a minimum punishment for such violations — nothing less will do...
Petraeus shared the information with a lover and a biographer — there was never even an accusation, he wanted or was prepared to overlook it being accessed by an enemy.
The hypothetical Chinese mole may well be an actual Chinese, working for his country. Assange is not an American and owes us little loyalty.
But Manning, who harmed his country to impress a boyfriend, and Snowden, who did it for some "greater good" (which never materialized), were traitors. The sooner we stop glorifying the two assholes, the sooner the healing will begin.
Trolls, in that sense, didn't particularly believe in what they posted
Woa-woah! How does that follow from the definition you've declared? Why does my seeking to draw a response — or even start a flamewar — automatically mean, I do not believe in what I'm saying?
This part I never understood, to be perfectly honest. Every time there is a news-report about pilots avoiding a "near miss" with a drone, I wonder — why do they bother "avoiding" it? None of the consumer-drone I've seen is tougher than a sizeable bird and an airplane better be tough to enough fly straight through a bird or two — except, perhaps, condors... But the heavy (loaded with water) fire-fighting craft (as well as the usual passenger planes used by commercial airlines) should be able to fly through even a condor without registering the collision...
That cure is worse than the disease! Flak falls down to the ground — on our heads. Better to shoot it with a regular bullet — at least, you only need one or two. But most of these drones are slow-flying "copters" — you can disable them with an entangling net...
And you don't need your means to be too powerful — to endanger a fire-fighter, for example, the drone has to fly right next to him anyway. If it is too far to be hit with a thrown stick (or a net), they should not be hitting it with anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I get it. You really #HateTrump. But you still have to call him President... Suck it up, cupcake.
If I subscribed to their services willingly, it is a bill. If I'm forced to use the services of a monopoly, a gun point is involved. Hope, this helps.
What?! Why? How?..
No, I don't think this is true — what ditch-digger would prefer a ditch he dug to a pastry? But even if he did value his ditch out of some sentimental attachment, what of it?
No, I haven't. And why is such inequality even a bad thing automatically and by itself? Is Michael Phelps' ability to swim so much better than that of the rest of us alarming? Should we impose a "windfall" tax on his Olympic medals? People have equal inalienable rights, but we aren't born equal. Unless you are also prepared to cripple the strong, lobotomize the smart, and disfigure the beautiful — for equality — why would you tax the successful?
But stipulating, the said disappearance of the middle class is both real and bad, why are you accusing the Capitalists of it — and not, for example, the ever increasing government "spreading" of everybody's wealth around? Or, for another example, not the trade policies favoring the truly oppressive (Marxist) China?
His entire $51 billion can only give the 150 million of Americans, who pay no income tax today, $340... Once. As you say, most of those working would be taxed extra to further comfort the idle.
Ergo, my reference to the gun point, which is how all taxes are collected...
So, of course, "UBI" and other attempts to forcibly "spread the wealth" to address the non-problem of "income inequality" are foolish and oppressive. But for the uber-rich like Zuckerberg to advance them without donating a sizeable chunk of their own wealth to the needy is, in addition to those two things, also hypocritical.
Why should already super-privileged Harvard students get yet another gift?
Your objection is immaterial. He could do it to graduates of any other college too. Tafts and UMass Boston are right there, for example...
TL;DR. Whatever, dude. Until the accusers can state their accusation and provide anything like evidence, this is all politics. Dirty politics.
He could pay off the debt of all of the students attending his speech and not even notice, but no... Voluntary help just will not do.
He wants other people's wealth to be "spread around" at gun-point...
Yeah, yeah. Capitalism is oppressive, Marxism is liberty. War is Peace...
Nope. It is because he was wrong. Fundamentally...
According to him, for example, 8 hours of work by a ditch-digger is equally valuable as 8 hours of an engineer or a pastry-chef. Equally valuable and therefore to be equally rewarded. As I said, wrong .
The progressive movement of 1900 had little to do with what's known as "progressive" today. But if you are willing to defend, what those guys did, let's start with the Prohibition... :)
No. The reason was Capitalism's ability to produce wealth — more than any other regime — and enough of it to keep the workers and the farmers satisfied, to the dismay of the Marxists. It is this satisfaction they've been trying to erode with varying success ever since — with made-up "outrages" over non-issues like "gender equality"... See also Marxism 2.0.
But there is no legal jeopardy, because [....] Duh...
Marx did not propose ideas — to be implemented or not. He thought of his theories as laws of nature — like gravity — take it from someone, who was forced to study Marxism in high school and college...
His claim was, the workers' revolution is inevitable when the means of production develop beyond a certain point. That it did not actually happen in the US, UK, and other countries is proof, the asshole was a fool and wasted years of his life on a big mistake — while his wife brought up their children.
Or maybe we should, now that the realization is kicking in, stop this creep up of Communism and go back to having a drastically lower involvement of government in the citizens' daily lives? Something like this, perhaps?
Use logic — it helps. If the leaker is found out, he will be dismissed from the White House for disloyalty.
But there is legal jeopardy, because — and his defense lawyer will seize on that — in releasing information to Americans, that the President himself has already disclosed to Putin.
But, hey, if no one really knows the content, why are we taking such amorphous anonymous accusations of the "leaks" as valid at all? Imagine a newspaper article accusing Hillary Clinton of intentionally leaking secrets — with the accuser being anonymous and the exact nature of the leaked information unknown... You'd be the first to ridicule such smearing... Now apply that principle evenly...
You did respond. You just didn't address the sole point made in the post you responded to. Which means, you accepted it.
Did you say "evenly"? Wow... Even if we stipulate, that Trump really did disclose something important to the Russians, he simply could not in the short time the conversation took, disclose as much, as Snowden and Manning disclosed. If we were to apply the same standards to all, that Guardian article you cited would've dripped with deadly poison in its reports about the two — and called for capital punishment for both. Instead, the paper — and others like it — consider them heroes. "Evenly" my tail...
Except none of the outed were "traitors" — not in the traditional "aiding a hostile foreign power" sense of the word.
Yes, they are supposed to uphold the Constitution — but breaking that promise, however wrong, is not treason...
Now, if you wish to continue, reply under your own name to undo the downmodding you've caused me.
You are too cynical. They will pull punches to help a good cause — examples skipped for brevety...
I am not "blaming the media" here. I'm merely pointing out, that, if Trump really did communicate something he should not have to Lavrov, you would've heard all of the damaging details by now. Many times over. From newspapers in the mornings to Rachel Maddow in the evening. That we still do not know, what the supposedly "outrageous leak" consisted of, is a good indicator, Trump did nothing wrong...
The source is already in jeopardy after your publishing the allegation of the fact of the link. There is no additional danger to them from you also publishing the contents.
So, once again, we know, that either the leakers or the media do not consider that content damaging to Trump. Otherwise they would've printed it just as gleefully, as they printed the juicier bits of the earlier WikiLeaks document-dumps.
You replied to my post, where I called them both traitors. You didn't object to that in the slightest, saying instead: "What about Trump?". In any reasonable conversation that is sufficient to conclude, you agreed with my assessment of the two traitors, and wish to switch the topic...
First of all, thank you for agreeing/conceding, Snowden and Manning really were traitors. Most refreshing...
Now let's talk about Donald Trump's alleged "leak". Though the media exploded last week with these allegations of the fact of the leak — all citing an anonymous official present in the room — none would quote the content of it.
Why would they — after gleefully reprinting WikiLeaks for years — be so reserved all of a sudden? To protect the secret from spreading further? Nope — if Putin knows it already, there is no point in keeping quiet any more.
Which should tell any unbiased observer, nothing was actually leaked... Had they told you the contents, you would've shrugged and lost the outrage — much better to keep you in suspense. In other words, you've been played by Trump-haterz. Again.
Yes, I too am willing to cut him slack — no capital punishment. 10-20 years in federal prison.
This is simply evidence, he was well aware of the harm his releases will do to his country. And did it anyway. He may well have been sincere, but so were the Rosenbergs. It is still treason.
Like this is the first time government officials are giving themselves an exception... From cops exceeding speed limits and driving the wrong way on one-way streets, to Amtrak's WiFi blocking Apple-store and Playboy.com (screw net-neutrality), to this.
Maybe, it is time for a Constitutional amendment prescribing a minimum punishment for such violations — nothing less will do...
It may very well be, and indeed was in the case of Snowden.
That may be true, but is irrelevant.
I know, right? What has breaking of Enigma ever done for us?
Petraeus shared the information with a lover and a biographer — there was never even an accusation, he wanted or was prepared to overlook it being accessed by an enemy.
The hypothetical Chinese mole may well be an actual Chinese, working for his country. Assange is not an American and owes us little loyalty.
But Manning, who harmed his country to impress a boyfriend, and Snowden, who did it for some "greater good" (which never materialized), were traitors. The sooner we stop glorifying the two assholes, the sooner the healing will begin.
Woa-woah! How does that follow from the definition you've declared? Why does my seeking to draw a response — or even start a flamewar — automatically mean, I do not believe in what I'm saying?
This part I never understood, to be perfectly honest. Every time there is a news-report about pilots avoiding a "near miss" with a drone, I wonder — why do they bother "avoiding" it? None of the consumer-drone I've seen is tougher than a sizeable bird and an airplane better be tough to enough fly straight through a bird or two — except, perhaps, condors... But the heavy (loaded with water) fire-fighting craft (as well as the usual passenger planes used by commercial airlines) should be able to fly through even a condor without registering the collision...
That cure is worse than the disease! Flak falls down to the ground — on our heads. Better to shoot it with a regular bullet — at least, you only need one or two. But most of these drones are slow-flying "copters" — you can disable them with an entangling net...
And you don't need your means to be too powerful — to endanger a fire-fighter, for example, the drone has to fly right next to him anyway. If it is too far to be hit with a thrown stick (or a net), they should not be hitting it with anything.