OK, thanks for the reference. My only question is the relative importance of the quote. My feeling is that a quote given for an interview (assuming that the newspaper in question was interviewing Marx) doesn't carry the same weight as a published book. We could also say the quote is taken out of context, so we don't know exactly was Marx was referring to. And there is also the possibility he was misquoted by a reporter with an agenda.
Also, the places where you heard it. Are they neutral (a university course, for example) or are they partisan publications? It's possible that a partisan might place undue emphasis on a single quote in order to discredit the speaker.
But this is all supposition, of course.
The government that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you the moment it suits their fancy.
Sure, I believe that statement. But if you substitute "corporation" or "church", or simply "organization" for "government", that statement is just as true.
So, the $64,000 question is, do we live as "rugged individualists" and let the vagaries of life happen, whatever they may be, or do we allow the construction of large institutions to smooth out the randomness of life, and depend on a system of checks and balances to prevent corruption and totalitarianism.
Umm, where do you think the federal government is going to get all that money to fund it? Government does not actually produce anything (other than fiscal disasters), so the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is taxes. Taxes on the big corporations, the small companies, and the individuals. So, we will all pay for it one way or another.
You don't have to look any farther than the Preamble to the US Constituion to get an idea of what the Founders felt the purpose of govenment is.
Establish justice
Ensure domestic tranquility
Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare
Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity
Taxes are the way to finance all that, and yes, all businesses and individuals are expected to pay, but that's to give us all a common good, which is a govenment that has the resources to do all of the above. Note that "promote the general welfare" is one of them. What kind of advantage did you have growing up in the US, with the society our ancestors fought, died, and paid taxes for, rather than growing up someplace like Albania, Afghanistan, Botswana, or someplace that did not have a government provide for "the general welfare"?
Someone once expressed an idea similar to yours. He said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds nice, huh? It was Karl Marx.
Well, at least you got the attribution of that quote right. Many people think it's from the Bible or the US Constitution.
Oh, he had one other thing to say...
Translated, that is, "We are without mercy, and we seek no mercy from you. When our turn comes, we will not make apologies for the terror."
Oh, that's a nice debating tactic. Instead of refuting my point directly, you say my ideas are "similar" to Karl Marx, and then produce an incendiary Marx quote (which I've never heard nor do I know the source, do you, since you didn't attribute it?) to destroy my credibility. Incidentally, that quote has nothing to do with what I'm saying nor does it reflect my opinion in any way whatsoever.
I'm not going to back off from my statement just because of a similarity to "The Communist Manifesto". Of course what I was using as a model were the more socialistic countries in Europe (e.g. Netherlands, Sweden) that seem to have decent economies and still manage socialized medicine and a significant social safety net. Yes they have high taxes, but you'd think they would have bankrupted themselves by now, listening to the way the conservatives talk.
Any why is it that we spend more per capita on health care than any other country in the world, but have a higher infant mortality rate and a shorter life expectancy than virually every other Western country?
Oh, you FEEL that way, huh? And how can you possibly justify that? Why should I be burdened because YOU decide to have a child? You make a decision to procreate, you'd better understand the consequences of your actions. I have two children and never asked anybody for a dime, and NO, I'm not an evil rich republican greedy bastard, thankyouverymuch.
So instead of addressing her belief logically you go on this holier-than-thou tirade. How civilized of you.
This is her point. Raising children properly is in the national (common) interest. Since we all (you included) have a stake in the positive outcome (the child becoming a productive member of society), this is something the government should support. We already do to a certain degree (child tax credits and such), but she would like to see even a higher level of support.
Now you, mister "never asked anybody for a dime", have a different opinion about how much the government should spend. So, did you accept the handouts that you didn't "ask for"? Did you "Just Say No" to that tax credit when you filled out your 1040? Did you write to you congressman and ask for that credit to be repealed?
And it's also possible that you have a nice, well-paying job, who can afford child care and such a lot better than the checkout clerk at Wal-Mart, and so your children have a much higher probablility of success than the children of the Wal-Mart clerk. But that doesn't affect you in your gated community, right?
Business's should be able to afford it or people won't work for them.
Now I know you're smoking crack... you realize the majority of people employed in the U.S. are employed by SMALL businesses?
And the small businesses can't afford it, because they don't have the resources. Very true.
But, that's even more reason why the government should be more involved. Why should large companies have that kind of advantage, when small business is so important? If the government were to do the things that are currently the domain of "employee benefits" you would see a much more level playing field between small and big business. But the business community is always railing against "big government."
The irony here is that big business has gamed the system, making it more difficult for small business to succeed, and it has also convinced small business that the government can't help them.
The moniker "World Series" was used long before the league expanded to Canada. I believe "World Series" was actually used in the late 1800's. However, it was certainly used in the early 20th century. The expansion into Montreal didn't happen until the late 60's, and it was the mid 70's before Toronto joined.
OK, Cheney had a family to support. So do many of the Reservists and Guard called up to serve in Iraq. And then stop-loss orders, and calling up former actives to further stress out these families. But Cheney's like the Soup Nazi - "No deferments for you!" even though he got them himself. And remember, a deferment for Cheney (and Ashcroft, etc.) meant that some poor schmuck without family connections or money had to serve in his place.
However, the point is not Cheney's deferments alone, it's the deferments and his hawkish stance on Iraq and other conflicts. Simply put, these neocons are a bunch of chicken-hawks. They found excuses not to serve themselves, but they seem to love wars of choice.
And that Kerry comment is just a weak troll which only highlights your historical ignorance.
To the men in the Hanoi Hilton, Kerry's testimony was a nightmare come true. Imprisoned, tortured and malnourished soldiers were put through some of the worst experiences of their lives to do what Kerry did willingly.
Kerry was simply facing facts, and re-iterating what other soldiers had testified to in front of Congress. Kerry was trying to show that the war was immoral, and that the troops should be brought home as soon as possible, which would then allow the POW's in the Hanoi Hilton to be released.
I don't know what *bushies* you're talking about. I think anyone who has read/watched/heard of these painful experiences can understand the Vets point of view.
I'm talking about the so called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Their second ad had all these vets saying how Kerry's testimony made them "feel bad". The problem is that these vets never faced up to the fact thet they were ordered to conduct an immoral war. They should have "felt bad", and then they should have been angry that their leaders had betrayed them. But a lot of people cannot handle this fundamental assault on their belief systems, so they instead choose to blame the messenger. And as to the torture doled out at the Hanoi Hilton, if they were indeed covering up war crimes, then they should also blame the commanders who ordered them rather that the whistleblower, but I can certainly understand their anger.
The main point I was trying to make (which you totally missed or ignored) was that Bush did not serve in Vietnam (and was not going to), and used his family connections to avoid that service, thereby sending someone else to Vietnam in his place. He and his cohorts have run incredible smear campaigns against three highly decorated Vietnam veterans (McCain in 2000, Cleland on 2002, and Kerry in 2004), yet Bush says how much he respects veterans and the military. If he really respected them, he wouldn't allow those kind of campaigns to be run. but since Bush has no record to be proud of (certainly in comparison), he's got to tear down the other guy.
I can't help but wonder what kind of campaign Bush would run if he were running against Eisenhower.
I've been looking for some time to get rid of some of the work that I do - and it's been a BITCH finding somebody with the right attitude, the right mentality, and the right skillset to replace me.
Perhaps if you weren't looking for a clone of yourself you might have better luck. Gee, maybe a person with a different background, different skill set, and different life experiences might come of with a solution to a problem that would have never occurred to you.
"I was a couragous soldier in Vietnam!" "What do you mean everyone else that was with me says I was a coward and an idiot! SHIT the truth is out!"
All of the claims by that Swift Boat group that ran those ads have been thouroghly debunked. One of them even got the same award Kerry did from the same incident. And ask the guy Kerry pulled from the water if Kerry was a coward?
It's also been well-documented that that Swift Boat group consisted of mostly Republican activists who had, if not direct/illegal ties to the Bush campaign, at least a wink-wink-nudge-nudge ties.
The fact is that you wing-nuts can't stand it when someone who served in Vietnam criticizes the Bushes, but let's look at the record.
John McCain - Vietnam POW. Bushies say: Manchurian Candidate - fathered a child with a black woman.
Max Cleland - Lost three limbs in Vietnam. Bushies say: He's unpatriotic because he thinks Homeland Security workers ought to be able to unionize.
John Kerry - 3 Purple hearts (and still has sharpnel in his thigh), Bronze Star, Silver Star Bushies say: Didn't earn the medals. Wounds not sufficiently serious. Vietnam vets had their "feelings hurt" when Kerry testified as to the war crimes that soldiers were ordered to do.
Yeah I want a guy that cant make up his mind and lies about is service duty. And you cant say Bush lied because its all there. Even though they try and make something out of his record theres nothing there to bash him about.:) I love liberal media.
Nothing to bash Bush about? Let's look at the President's "record"
Gained entrace to Yale as a "legacy", since his entrance exam scores would not have qualified.
Scored the minimum on the pilot qualifying test, but still jumps ahead of thousands on a waiting list to get into the Texas Air National Guard's "Champagne Unit", along with sons orf other prominent Texans (including Democrat Lloyd Bentsen) and members of the Dallas Cowboys. It was well known that this unit would never get called to go into Vietnam, since the decision had been made early on in Vietnam not to callup reservists or Guard members, but to use regular army and draftees.
Did not report for a mandatory physical (right after drug tests were instituted, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence) and was stripped of his pilot's wings as a result, effectively throwing a million or so dollars of pilot training down the drain.
Requested a trnsfer from Texas to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign, but the records of what he actually did there, if anything, are spotty at best.
Was released from his guard duty months early so he could attend Harvard Business School, where he routinely got "gentlemen's C's". One professor said he would sit in the back row of class wearing his flight jacket, and throw spitballs during class.
His business record is no better.
And as to the "liberal media", they have given Bush a free ride for a long time now. They held Al Gore to far tougher standards of "truth" then they've ever held Bush, and they're doing it again to Kerry. If you want to continue your delusional right-wing thinking, go ahead, but don't go crying "liberal media" whenever they bring up inconvenient facts which challenge your pre-conceived notions.
Do you remember a major program that Dick Cheney cancelled when we was SECDEF? I do, it was the A-12, a.k.a. Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) which was supposed to be a carrier based attack plave replacement for the A-6. I especially do because I was working on that program and got laid off with 8 days notice and no severance benefits other than a room with computers, phones, and fax machines to use to find a new job. So Cheney has ceratinly voted against programs, too.
And you know darn good and well that many of those "against" votes were in response to pork that had been piled on the defense appropriation biils. It's certainly not gutless to vote against a bill that's been significantly porked up from the original version you voted for.
And let's also mention that all but the most right-wing news organization (e.g. Fox News, Wash. Times, Wall St. Journal) have essentially debunked that whole Swift Boat ad.
I also don't understand this cognitive dissonance many in the military have for Bush.
This guy did the following
He used family connections to get in the Guard
He specifically requested not to go to Vietnam (guard members then had the choice)
After the government trained him to fly, he failed to show for his required physical.
He left the Air Nat. Guard post in Texas to go to Alabame to work on a campaign, where 3 months of his guard duty time have not been accounted for.
He was allowed to end his Guard service early to go to Harvard Business School.
And Kerry is an elitist?
And then look what Bush has done in Iraq:
He did not listen to the generals about the numerical forces that would be required.
He wanted to cut combat pay until criticized in the media.
He will not allow the VA to advertise the health benefits that veterans are entitled to.
He issued stop-loss orders that don't allow reservists or actives to leave when their terms are up (a "back-door" draft).
He called up many former soldiers from the ready reserve who hadn't served for many years.
And there's more.
I understand that many people find Bush strength and resolve admirable. But his frightening lack of curiosity (he doen't read newspapers), lack of historical knowledge (calling the original Afghan mission a "Crusade"), and lack of a viable way to pay for all these foreign adventures (ever head of "shared sacrifice") just make that "resolve" seem like ignorant stubbornness.
Proponents (not perhaps without some justification, I suppose) argue that since no Americans want to pick strawberries or mow lawns for a living, without the illegal/legal migrant workers, the work will never get done.
"Free trade" proponents always say that. The truth is that Americans don't wan't to pick strawberries for the salaries the growers offer, because you simply cannot support a family in the US on those salaries. If the growers up the salaries, then Americans will do it, but that makes the price of strawberries go up. Then we'll just buy strawberries from Banana Republic where they're willing to work for $1/day and can actually support a family.
Those with the "have" are in a position to call the shots here. Or put another way, capitalism being tied to the private ownership of the means of production allows the private appropriation of surplus value. Companies outsource more for marginal benefits at best it seems, and yet nobody things to cut the salaries of the top executives?
You haven't been following the news lately. CEO salaries are out of control because of all the "good ol' boy" networks in these corporate compensation committees. Stockholders can't get rid of them because too much is held by insiders. Look how the effort to oust Eisner at Disney failed, and he's been paid insane salaries to run the company into the ground.
The problem is that CEO's and their ilk live in a totally separate reality from the rest of us, and have lost any sense of "social responsibility". And the last defense we have against the "aristocracy of wealth" is the estate tax, which the Bushies want to permanently abolish.
Also, there is a movie released in 2003 called The Corporation which, as one of its premises, stated that if you consider the typical corporation as a person and diagnose it using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, it would be a sociopath.
Maybe Kerry can make better decisions because he's well-read (he actually reads newspapers), well-educated, feels real sympathy to those less fortunate then himself, and has personally experienced what damage a President can do with a bad decision.
Though remember, when W's frat brothers needed someone to go on a beer run, George W. Bush said, "Send me!"
That's an awfully big brush you're painting there.
Let's see, there's a lot of violence in Poe's writing, not to mention Lovecraft, Rice, Stephen King, and Tom Clancy. Government can't sanction it, so it's gotta go.
Wow, look at all than deviant sex in Greek mythology. Well, we can't let the government can't sanction that either, so bye-bye Ovid and all the rest.
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium? Gosh, this Copernicus guy is questioning the most sacred idea that the Earth is the center of the universe. That's gotta go, too.
Now, lest you think I'm equating the artistic merit of OutKast to Poe, let me say that this is almost certainly not the case. But it should be the librarian that decides what belongs in the library, not the Attorney General.
"I know, Mommy. I really wanted to borrow that Toby Keith CD from the library, but that mean ole liberal librarian forced me to being home OutKast instead."
It would be nice if we all had the business skills/connections/capital to start our own business. But normally to become a top-notch technical worker/scientist/engineer you don't have time to acquire those business skills. And vice versa, the people wit the business skills don't have time to acquire the technical knowledge.
So the "duty" is that the techie learns the business model and the technology to support the business and performs the tasks effectively, and the capitalist makes sure that the techie is fairly compensated, and then decides in what direction the business should go.
But what's happened is that the capitalist, in search of higher profits has reneged on the deal, the "social contract" has been broken, and now the techie is out in the cold. I'm from the Rust Belt, and I saw this happen to many factory workers in the 70's. So I got into computers, becaused I liked the work, and because is was "safe". And now it's happening to us.
This is a problem that neither laissez-faire capitalism nor jingoistic protectionism will solve. But the government must be involved, or the corporations will run riot over us.
Heaven forbid that society asks you to pony up a fraction of your income to help support the society who's benefits have helped you achieve the standard of living you now enjoy.
All I can tell you about this is from experience and what I've seen from growing up in the deep south. You see this in New Orleans....this city is poverty stricken...and this cycle has been repeating itself for decades....the projects in the city here are monuments to it. The poor, decaying neighborhoods are a testament to it.
I don't disagree that there is a problem. If you want descriptions of poverty, read Charles Dickens. It's been around a long time. The question is, did welfare promote or exacerbate the problem? Remember that correlation does not imply causality.
I think you answered your own question...the key word being work. The govt. does need people to work for it. But, it is not a 'hand out' or welfare....
While on a superficial level you're argument makes sense, there are some deeper issues regarding the government "dole" on so on.
Contracts, for the most part, are competed out....voting really shouldn't play a part in this, but, those who get govt. handouts will always vote those in who promise to give them the most for nothing...this is a dangerous cycle.
The plain fact is that the govenment is a huge consumer, and so tilts any market they choose to enter. If the government chooses to buy 1 million XYZ widgets, doesn't that raise the demand curve in such a way that the price goes up, making it more profitable for those who provide said widget. So while the makers of widget XYZ are working for the money, they are making more than they would if the government were not buying said widget.
You could say that the government is giving a handout to them in the form of these increased profits. That they are on the dole in the amount of these increased profits. Doesn't that them give the makers of XYZ widgets a vested interest to vote for those who promise to keep the government buying XYZ widgets, and not possibly switching to ABC gadgets? Or not buying any at all?
it promotes a vicious circle, that has helped spiral the budget and work ethic down the drain....at least in the poverty level and project levels of our society.
Many studies have shown that this "vicious cycle" that produces so-called "welfare queens" who lives their whole lives on the government dole is largely a myth (there are a few true cases, blown totally out of proportion to the problem), promoted by those with an ideology that the government cannot help people make their lives better. However, I do agree that people who are on the dole should be required to do something to improve themselves. Parenting classes and sex education would be great places to start, so they can raise the kids they have better and not have more that they can't take care of. I personally believe that is more important than job training, at least for those with school age or younger children.
Personally, I can't stand flip-floppers. I mean, look at Stephen Hawking. He flip-flopped on this whole idea of information coming out of black holes! Obviously he's someone without strength of character who simply cannot be trusted to make a decision and stick to it.
I'll never believe another thing Hawking says ever again.
for a score of 82. Though I really got 8, but I misentered the answer for 2.3, so is cost me 11 poins (-5 plus not getting the 6 it was worth). I still had fun, though. The final rankings haven't been posted yet, so I don't know how well I did comparatively. I did score better than last year, though.
I just finished number 1 and submitted it with 8 seconds to spare.
I got 1, 2.1, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 12 right. I missed 2.3, 5, and 16.
I tried a few others (7, 9 especially) and realized I would not finish them in time.
It seems they were much better organized this year. Last year, the server melted right at the deadline, and I wasn't able to submit my final answers until about 5 minutes after the deadline. Also, this year we got email confirmation of our scores, which is really nice. I'm eager to see the final statistics.
Those people that scored best must practice these type of puzzles constantly and know the exact techniques to be able to solve them so quickly.
Oh my god, a president went on vacation!? String him up! Do you realize that "the threat was building" during the entire Clinton administration? So I guess Clinton never took a vacation, otherwise Moore would have gone after him too, right? Clinton just just got a blow job in the closet, which means he loves America I guess?
Simply taking a vacation was not the problem. Bush took the entire month of August, 2001 as a so-called "working" vacation. And he had taken plenty of other vacations preceding that. When's the last time you took a month's vacation? I know personally, thanks to this lousy economy, that I haven't been able to take a vacation since September 2000.
And if Clinton had tried to do anything significant about OBL, the Repubs would have been shouting "Wag The Dog" accusations until the cows came home.
Um, what? The president was visiting a school. The attacks happened. Cameras were there because they are always there when the president is. How the hell is this some kind of calculated photo op? It isn't, Moore is a moron if that's one of his main accusations. Wait, scratch the end of that sentance and leave it at "Moore is a moron."
Lots of people volunteer to read to kids at school, but how many have themselves filmed while doing it. If he hadn't have been doing it for a photo-op, he sould have asked for the cameras to be turned off.
And the criticism was not the reading itself, it was the fact that Bush had no idea what to do when the attacks happened.
And this criticism is only one of the lesser ones. Perhaps you should lay off the ad hominen attacks. Oh wait, I forgot, that's the only way your side can win this argument.
And a sob story to wrap it all up, to make the fake hatred stick. Very classic. After all, "think about the children!!" gets them every time.
Perhaps you would feel differently if that were your son, or father, or somebody you cared about. Although from your attitude, I think the only person you care about is yourself.
I listed three companies, since they're the ones that I could quickly list off the top of my head. There are thousands of defense contractors with employment in the millions. Not to mention the secondary effects (e.g. civilian jobs that support Army bases). The thing that separates us from the rest of the world is the massive amount of money we spend on the military. No other country even comes close.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you're making sure that the Communists aren't going to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids.
Now, how about some rainwater and grain alcohol, General Ripper?
OK, thanks for the reference. My only question is the relative importance of the quote. My feeling is that a quote given for an interview (assuming that the newspaper in question was interviewing Marx) doesn't carry the same weight as a published book. We could also say the quote is taken out of context, so we don't know exactly was Marx was referring to. And there is also the possibility he was misquoted by a reporter with an agenda.
Also, the places where you heard it. Are they neutral (a university course, for example) or are they partisan publications? It's possible that a partisan might place undue emphasis on a single quote in order to discredit the speaker. But this is all supposition, of course.
The government that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you the moment it suits their fancy.
Sure, I believe that statement. But if you substitute "corporation" or "church", or simply "organization" for "government", that statement is just as true.
So, the $64,000 question is, do we live as "rugged individualists" and let the vagaries of life happen, whatever they may be, or do we allow the construction of large institutions to smooth out the randomness of life, and depend on a system of checks and balances to prevent corruption and totalitarianism.
Umm, where do you think the federal government is going to get all that money to fund it? Government does not actually produce anything (other than fiscal disasters), so the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is taxes. Taxes on the big corporations, the small companies, and the individuals. So, we will all pay for it one way or another.
You don't have to look any farther than the Preamble to the US Constituion to get an idea of what the Founders felt the purpose of govenment is.
Taxes are the way to finance all that, and yes, all businesses and individuals are expected to pay, but that's to give us all a common good, which is a govenment that has the resources to do all of the above. Note that "promote the general welfare" is one of them. What kind of advantage did you have growing up in the US, with the society our ancestors fought, died, and paid taxes for, rather than growing up someplace like Albania, Afghanistan, Botswana, or someplace that did not have a government provide for "the general welfare"?
Someone once expressed an idea similar to yours. He said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds nice, huh? It was Karl Marx.
Well, at least you got the attribution of that quote right. Many people think it's from the Bible or the US Constitution.
Oh, he had one other thing to say ...
Translated, that is, "We are without mercy, and we seek no mercy from you. When our turn comes, we will not make apologies for the terror."
Oh, that's a nice debating tactic. Instead of refuting my point directly, you say my ideas are "similar" to Karl Marx, and then produce an incendiary Marx quote (which I've never heard nor do I know the source, do you, since you didn't attribute it?) to destroy my credibility. Incidentally, that quote has nothing to do with what I'm saying nor does it reflect my opinion in any way whatsoever.
I'm not going to back off from my statement just because of a similarity to "The Communist Manifesto". Of course what I was using as a model were the more socialistic countries in Europe (e.g. Netherlands, Sweden) that seem to have decent economies and still manage socialized medicine and a significant social safety net. Yes they have high taxes, but you'd think they would have bankrupted themselves by now, listening to the way the conservatives talk.
Any why is it that we spend more per capita on health care than any other country in the world, but have a higher infant mortality rate and a shorter life expectancy than virually every other Western country?
Oh, you FEEL that way, huh? And how can you possibly justify that? Why should I be burdened because YOU decide to have a child? You make a decision to procreate, you'd better understand the consequences of your actions. I have two children and never asked anybody for a dime, and NO, I'm not an evil rich republican greedy bastard, thankyouverymuch.
So instead of addressing her belief logically you go on this holier-than-thou tirade. How civilized of you.
This is her point. Raising children properly is in the national (common) interest. Since we all (you included) have a stake in the positive outcome (the child becoming a productive member of society), this is something the government should support. We already do to a certain degree (child tax credits and such), but she would like to see even a higher level of support.
Now you, mister "never asked anybody for a dime", have a different opinion about how much the government should spend. So, did you accept the handouts that you didn't "ask for"? Did you "Just Say No" to that tax credit when you filled out your 1040? Did you write to you congressman and ask for that credit to be repealed?
And it's also possible that you have a nice, well-paying job, who can afford child care and such a lot better than the checkout clerk at Wal-Mart, and so your children have a much higher probablility of success than the children of the Wal-Mart clerk. But that doesn't affect you in your gated community, right?
Now I know you're smoking crack... you realize the majority of people employed in the U.S. are employed by SMALL businesses?
And the small businesses can't afford it, because they don't have the resources. Very true.
But, that's even more reason why the government should be more involved. Why should large companies have that kind of advantage, when small business is so important? If the government were to do the things that are currently the domain of "employee benefits" you would see a much more level playing field between small and big business. But the business community is always railing against "big government."
The irony here is that big business has gamed the system, making it more difficult for small business to succeed, and it has also convinced small business that the government can't help them.
Machiavelli would be proud.
Not just a chimp, but a smirking chimp.
The moniker "World Series" was used long before the league expanded to Canada. I believe "World Series" was actually used in the late 1800's. However, it was certainly used in the early 20th century. The expansion into Montreal didn't happen until the late 60's, and it was the mid 70's before Toronto joined.
OK, Cheney had a family to support. So do many of the Reservists and Guard called up to serve in Iraq. And then stop-loss orders, and calling up former actives to further stress out these families. But Cheney's like the Soup Nazi - "No deferments for you!" even though he got them himself. And remember, a deferment for Cheney (and Ashcroft, etc.) meant that some poor schmuck without family connections or money had to serve in his place.
However, the point is not Cheney's deferments alone, it's the deferments and his hawkish stance on Iraq and other conflicts. Simply put, these neocons are a bunch of chicken-hawks. They found excuses not to serve themselves, but they seem to love wars of choice.
And that Kerry comment is just a weak troll which only highlights your historical ignorance.
To the men in the Hanoi Hilton, Kerry's testimony was a nightmare come true. Imprisoned, tortured and malnourished soldiers were put through some of the worst experiences of their lives to do what Kerry did willingly.
Kerry was simply facing facts, and re-iterating what other soldiers had testified to in front of Congress. Kerry was trying to show that the war was immoral, and that the troops should be brought home as soon as possible, which would then allow the POW's in the Hanoi Hilton to be released.
I don't know what *bushies* you're talking about. I think anyone who has read/watched/heard of these painful experiences can understand the Vets point of view.
I'm talking about the so called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Their second ad had all these vets saying how Kerry's testimony made them "feel bad". The problem is that these vets never faced up to the fact thet they were ordered to conduct an immoral war. They should have "felt bad", and then they should have been angry that their leaders had betrayed them. But a lot of people cannot handle this fundamental assault on their belief systems, so they instead choose to blame the messenger. And as to the torture doled out at the Hanoi Hilton, if they were indeed covering up war crimes, then they should also blame the commanders who ordered them rather that the whistleblower, but I can certainly understand their anger.
The main point I was trying to make (which you totally missed or ignored) was that Bush did not serve in Vietnam (and was not going to), and used his family connections to avoid that service, thereby sending someone else to Vietnam in his place. He and his cohorts have run incredible smear campaigns against three highly decorated Vietnam veterans (McCain in 2000, Cleland on 2002, and Kerry in 2004), yet Bush says how much he respects veterans and the military. If he really respected them, he wouldn't allow those kind of campaigns to be run. but since Bush has no record to be proud of (certainly in comparison), he's got to tear down the other guy.
I can't help but wonder what kind of campaign Bush would run if he were running against Eisenhower.
I've been looking for some time to get rid of some of the work that I do - and it's been a BITCH finding somebody with the right attitude, the right mentality, and the right skillset to replace me.
Perhaps if you weren't looking for a clone of yourself you might have better luck. Gee, maybe a person with a different background, different skill set, and different life experiences might come of with a solution to a problem that would have never occurred to you.
It's called diversity. Look into it.
"I was a couragous soldier in Vietnam!" "What do you mean everyone else that was with me says I was a coward and an idiot! SHIT the truth is out!"
All of the claims by that Swift Boat group that ran those ads have been thouroghly debunked. One of them even got the same award Kerry did from the same incident. And ask the guy Kerry pulled from the water if Kerry was a coward?
It's also been well-documented that that Swift Boat group consisted of mostly Republican activists who had, if not direct/illegal ties to the Bush campaign, at least a wink-wink-nudge-nudge ties.
The fact is that you wing-nuts can't stand it when someone who served in Vietnam criticizes the Bushes, but let's look at the record.
Bushies say: Manchurian Candidate - fathered a child with a black woman.
Bushies say: He's unpatriotic because he thinks Homeland Security workers ought to be able to unionize.
Bushies say: Didn't earn the medals. Wounds not sufficiently serious. Vietnam vets had their "feelings hurt" when Kerry testified as to the war crimes that soldiers were ordered to do.
Yeah I want a guy that cant make up his mind and lies about is service duty. And you cant say Bush lied because its all there. Even though they try and make something out of his record theres nothing there to bash him about. :) I love liberal media.
Nothing to bash Bush about? Let's look at the President's "record"
His business record is no better.
And as to the "liberal media", they have given Bush a free ride for a long time now. They held Al Gore to far tougher standards of "truth" then they've ever held Bush, and they're doing it again to Kerry. If you want to continue your delusional right-wing thinking, go ahead, but don't go crying "liberal media" whenever they bring up inconvenient facts which challenge your pre-conceived notions.
And you know darn good and well that many of those "against" votes were in response to pork that had been piled on the defense appropriation biils. It's certainly not gutless to vote against a bill that's been significantly porked up from the original version you voted for.
And let's also mention that all but the most right-wing news organization (e.g. Fox News, Wash. Times, Wall St. Journal) have essentially debunked that whole Swift Boat ad.
I also don't understand this cognitive dissonance many in the military have for Bush.
This guy did the following
And Kerry is an elitist?
And then look what Bush has done in Iraq:
And there's more.
I understand that many people find Bush strength and resolve admirable. But his frightening lack of curiosity (he doen't read newspapers), lack of historical knowledge (calling the original Afghan mission a "Crusade"), and lack of a viable way to pay for all these foreign adventures (ever head of "shared sacrifice") just make that "resolve" seem like ignorant stubbornness.
Proponents (not perhaps without some justification, I suppose) argue that since no Americans want to pick strawberries or mow lawns for a living, without the illegal/legal migrant workers, the work will never get done.
"Free trade" proponents always say that. The truth is that Americans don't wan't to pick strawberries for the salaries the growers offer, because you simply cannot support a family in the US on those salaries. If the growers up the salaries, then Americans will do it, but that makes the price of strawberries go up. Then we'll just buy strawberries from Banana Republic where they're willing to work for $1/day and can actually support a family.
Those with the "have" are in a position to call the shots here. Or put another way, capitalism being tied to the private ownership of the means of production allows the private appropriation of surplus value. Companies outsource more for marginal benefits at best it seems, and yet nobody things to cut the salaries of the top executives?
You haven't been following the news lately. CEO salaries are out of control because of all the "good ol' boy" networks in these corporate compensation committees. Stockholders can't get rid of them because too much is held by insiders. Look how the effort to oust Eisner at Disney failed, and he's been paid insane salaries to run the company into the ground.
The problem is that CEO's and their ilk live in a totally separate reality from the rest of us, and have lost any sense of "social responsibility". And the last defense we have against the "aristocracy of wealth" is the estate tax, which the Bushies want to permanently abolish.
Also, there is a movie released in 2003 called The Corporation which, as one of its premises, stated that if you consider the typical corporation as a person and diagnose it using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, it would be a sociopath.
Maybe Kerry can make better decisions because he's well-read (he actually reads newspapers), well-educated, feels real sympathy to those less fortunate then himself, and has personally experienced what damage a President can do with a bad decision.
Though remember, when W's frat brothers needed someone to go on a beer run, George W. Bush said, "Send me!"
I was going to make a "Calvin and Hobbes" reference too but you beat me to it. Nice job.
Where's my mod points when I need them?
That's an awfully big brush you're painting there.
Let's see, there's a lot of violence in Poe's writing, not to mention Lovecraft, Rice, Stephen King, and Tom Clancy. Government can't sanction it, so it's gotta go.
Wow, look at all than deviant sex in Greek mythology. Well, we can't let the government can't sanction that either, so bye-bye Ovid and all the rest.
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium? Gosh, this Copernicus guy is questioning the most sacred idea that the Earth is the center of the universe. That's gotta go, too.
Now, lest you think I'm equating the artistic merit of OutKast to Poe, let me say that this is almost certainly not the case. But it should be the librarian that decides what belongs in the library, not the Attorney General.
And why in the world was DEVO on the banned list?
And exactly how does that relate to the CD issue?
"I know, Mommy. I really wanted to borrow that Toby Keith CD from the library, but that mean ole liberal librarian forced me to being home OutKast instead."
Consider that a lot of p(a)edophiles were sending pictures and other stuff to the email address, so you know they were visiting katie.com, too.
Would you post your daughter's baby pictures on a site you knew was a target for p(a)edophiles?
It would be nice if we all had the business skills/connections/capital to start our own business. But normally to become a top-notch technical worker/scientist/engineer you don't have time to acquire those business skills. And vice versa, the people wit the business skills don't have time to acquire the technical knowledge.
So the "duty" is that the techie learns the business model and the technology to support the business and performs the tasks effectively, and the capitalist makes sure that the techie is fairly compensated, and then decides in what direction the business should go.
But what's happened is that the capitalist, in search of higher profits has reneged on the deal, the "social contract" has been broken, and now the techie is out in the cold. I'm from the Rust Belt, and I saw this happen to many factory workers in the 70's. So I got into computers, becaused I liked the work, and because is was "safe". And now it's happening to us.
This is a problem that neither laissez-faire capitalism nor jingoistic protectionism will solve. But the government must be involved, or the corporations will run riot over us.
Heaven forbid that society asks you to pony up a fraction of your income to help support the society who's benefits have helped you achieve the standard of living you now enjoy.
All I can tell you about this is from experience and what I've seen from growing up in the deep south. You see this in New Orleans....this city is poverty stricken...and this cycle has been repeating itself for decades....the projects in the city here are monuments to it. The poor, decaying neighborhoods are a testament to it.
I don't disagree that there is a problem. If you want descriptions of poverty, read Charles Dickens. It's been around a long time. The question is, did welfare promote or exacerbate the problem? Remember that correlation does not imply causality.
I think you answered your own question...the key word being work. The govt. does need people to work for it. But, it is not a 'hand out' or welfare....
While on a superficial level you're argument makes sense, there are some deeper issues regarding the government "dole" on so on.
Contracts, for the most part, are competed out....voting really shouldn't play a part in this, but, those who get govt. handouts will always vote those in who promise to give them the most for nothing...this is a dangerous cycle.
The plain fact is that the govenment is a huge consumer, and so tilts any market they choose to enter. If the government chooses to buy 1 million XYZ widgets, doesn't that raise the demand curve in such a way that the price goes up, making it more profitable for those who provide said widget. So while the makers of widget XYZ are working for the money, they are making more than they would if the government were not buying said widget.
You could say that the government is giving a handout to them in the form of these increased profits. That they are on the dole in the amount of these increased profits. Doesn't that them give the makers of XYZ widgets a vested interest to vote for those who promise to keep the government buying XYZ widgets, and not possibly switching to ABC gadgets? Or not buying any at all?
it promotes a vicious circle, that has helped spiral the budget and work ethic down the drain....at least in the poverty level and project levels of our society.
Many studies have shown that this "vicious cycle" that produces so-called "welfare queens" who lives their whole lives on the government dole is largely a myth (there are a few true cases, blown totally out of proportion to the problem), promoted by those with an ideology that the government cannot help people make their lives better. However, I do agree that people who are on the dole should be required to do something to improve themselves. Parenting classes and sex education would be great places to start, so they can raise the kids they have better and not have more that they can't take care of. I personally believe that is more important than job training, at least for those with school age or younger children.
Personally, I can't stand flip-floppers. I mean, look at Stephen Hawking. He flip-flopped on this whole idea of information coming out of black holes! Obviously he's someone without strength of character who simply cannot be trusted to make a decision and stick to it.
I'll never believe another thing Hawking says ever again.
for a score of 82. Though I really got 8, but I misentered the answer for 2.3, so is cost me 11 poins (-5 plus not getting the 6 it was worth). I still had fun, though. The final rankings haven't been posted yet, so I don't know how well I did comparatively. I did score better than last year, though.
I just finished number 1 and submitted it with 8 seconds to spare.
I got 1, 2.1, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 12 right. I missed 2.3, 5, and 16.
I tried a few others (7, 9 especially) and realized I would not finish them in time.
It seems they were much better organized this year. Last year, the server melted right at the deadline, and I wasn't able to submit my final answers until about 5 minutes after the deadline. Also, this year we got email confirmation of our scores, which is really nice. I'm eager to see the final statistics.
Those people that scored best must practice these type of puzzles constantly and know the exact techniques to be able to solve them so quickly.
More power to them.
Oh my god, a president went on vacation!? String him up! Do you realize that "the threat was building" during the entire Clinton administration? So I guess Clinton never took a vacation, otherwise Moore would have gone after him too, right? Clinton just just got a blow job in the closet, which means he loves America I guess?
Simply taking a vacation was not the problem. Bush took the entire month of August, 2001 as a so-called "working" vacation. And he had taken plenty of other vacations preceding that. When's the last time you took a month's vacation? I know personally, thanks to this lousy economy, that I haven't been able to take a vacation since September 2000.
And if Clinton had tried to do anything significant about OBL, the Repubs would have been shouting "Wag The Dog" accusations until the cows came home.
Um, what? The president was visiting a school. The attacks happened. Cameras were there because they are always there when the president is. How the hell is this some kind of calculated photo op? It isn't, Moore is a moron if that's one of his main accusations. Wait, scratch the end of that sentance and leave it at "Moore is a moron."
Lots of people volunteer to read to kids at school, but how many have themselves filmed while doing it. If he hadn't have been doing it for a photo-op, he sould have asked for the cameras to be turned off.
And the criticism was not the reading itself, it was the fact that Bush had no idea what to do when the attacks happened.
And this criticism is only one of the lesser ones. Perhaps you should lay off the ad hominen attacks. Oh wait, I forgot, that's the only way your side can win this argument.
And a sob story to wrap it all up, to make the fake hatred stick. Very classic. After all, "think about the children!!" gets them every time.
Perhaps you would feel differently if that were your son, or father, or somebody you cared about. Although from your attitude, I think the only person you care about is yourself.
I listed three companies, since they're the ones that I could quickly list off the top of my head. There are thousands of defense contractors with employment in the millions. Not to mention the secondary effects (e.g. civilian jobs that support Army bases). The thing that separates us from the rest of the world is the massive amount of money we spend on the military. No other country even comes close.
And Mr. A.C., exactly where is my weasel-wording?