I don't understand why you guys do this. It appears as though the Republican party is so inept of ideas, that the only way you can gain traction is if you define the opposition in a negative way.
The debate ongoing in the US is not about socialism and capitalism. It is about free market capitalism, and a bizarre form of cronyism as practiced by the Republicans, where those who donate to their campaigns are rewarded with handouts from the Treasury.
You want to think of this as capitalism and those opposed to it as socialists, but that's not what it is.
As for Gov. Arnold. I don't live in CA, but from what I've seen he's proven himself to be quite a demagoguge and uniquely inept at actually solving the problems of California. Not much better than Grey Davis.
I abandoned the Republican party sometime between 1995-1998. I'm not sure quite when.
What did it for me was the GOP's completely inept handling of the budget.
I'm not particularly enamoured by the entire Democratic agenda. But I'm absolutely apalled at how badly Bush has been for our economy. What scares me, is that they don't even know it. There used to be a time when the GOP could at least be trusted to recognize the truth, but today they just keep repeating their ideology lines and sticking their head in the sand.
This article here about denying access to a technology discussion conference because of party politics is just another nail in the coffin. You've got real problems when you stop acknowledging American potential, all for your petty ideologies.
You know. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of moral relativists claiming that it's ok for Bush or the Republicans to be corrupt because Democrats might be corrupt to if they were in power.
What's wrong is wrong. There are no shades of grey here, not it's ok if someone else did it.
Your excusing bad behavior does not help encourage good behavior.
Oh come now. The only people who even know about Ward Churchill are the right-wing morons who are trying to paint all liberals as being of the same cloth.
That and the fact that you keep harping about Dan Rather. I mean come on, what are you smoking? You expect me to believe you're some moderate independent when you keep bringing up right-wing whackadoodle conspiracy stories?
Unlike you I would never be such a rabid fanatic as to attribute those comments to anyone else but those who said it. BTW, your URL is broken.
If you weren't a rabid fanatic, you wouldn't have brought up Ward Churchill, cause nobody ever heard about him until the rabid fanatic right started parading him around as proof of corrupt Liberalism.
So now you've shown your stripes.
Why do you pretend to be something other than what you are?
You know, maybe you should spend a bit more time studying who it is you claim to support.
The un-American accusations are so last year... Let's move onto things more recent.
There's some particularly good quotes that came out recently at an anarchy event sponsored by Republicans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn /articles/A383 08-2005Apr8.html?
Especially the lawyer who said Stalin was right in purging the country of people he disagreed with.
This isn't a fringe group... Tom Delay and Bill Frist spoke at their conference.
I've commented before I find it amusing that many self-styled Libertarians who use the "S" word as an insult are high up in movements like the Open Source movement.
I've always found that weird myself. But I think it's largely because many self-styled Libertarians are not really ideological so much as they just want cheap shit.
When Hillary Clinton is talking about possibly raising taxes to get the country back on track...
She's talking about balancing the fricking budget.
Right now we redistributing wealth. We're taking it away from future generations to give to the present generations. That's easy to do, because the future doesn't vote today.
It also get's more complicated in that much of our debt is being sold to foreign governments, which means we are effectively taking money away from the US to pay foreignors in the future.
If you give the government more power over the distribution of wealth and how to spend it, trust me, the government will not spend the money THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO.
As evidenced by the Republican party and the Bush administration.
More and more Democrats are coming to realize this, I hope.
Yeah, because anybody who is concerned with civil liberties is going to join the party which throws a fit anytime they see a boob on TV or someone says shit.
Not to mention the self-righteous behavior this past week in Florida.
What have republicans consistently stood for over the past 150 years?
Nothing...
Republicans only started calling out for smaller government around the time of the New Deal. And then it really only meant ending Social Security. Mortgages, banking insurance, that stuff sounded like good ideas. Of course for the past 60 years or so they've been championing expanding the military(which consumes half the discretionary budget now)... which is interesting because prior to WWII they were championing isolationism.
In the 1800's of course there was slavery. Republicans by and large opposed that, and then were viscious in wanting to beat the rebel south into submission... later turning into the party which opposed civil rights. But then back in the 1800s there were a bunch of Republicans who really liked business and they liked the idea of pro-business regulation... Tariffs, licensing fees, things which made it harder for new companies to enter the market, thus protecting existing ones from competition.
In a way, I suppose you could say that protecting business, for good or ill, has been a consistent Republican position.
So the parties... well they ebb and flow. Republicans today like big Government because they are in power, and the Big Government is doing things that they like. Democrats on the other hand are promoting states rights and small government because frankly they don't like what the government is doing to them. Yep, they've reversed positions. That's the nature of things.
Now as to this... It's not the entire democratic party who supports this, but a good portion. It was the Democrats who came up with the V-chip in the televisions, an the advisory labels on CDs... and the movie ratings system. But then that's probably a main difference... Democrats don't want to stop this stuff from being produced, they just want to help parents be aware of it. Republicans would be calling for the smut to be banned and forming book burning parties in the streets.
I don't know, nor do I care. Right now I see Republicans as a problem, primarily because of things lik the Schiavo case. I don't think Democrats would be better in a majority.
But I do think government would be better if it was gridlocked. As such I support Democrats.
Half way there, one of the tires blew out. We stopped at a truck stop, and was able to get a new tire. I asked the mechanic what happened to the old one and he replied "Low air pressure."
So I asked my friend, "How often do you check the pressure in your tires?"
I got a blank stare.
We immediately went over to the gas station, I went inside and bought an air pressure tester and put a couple of quarters in the air pump station to fill up the rest of the tires... which were all down around 15 psi.
The morale of the story... Cars require certain care and maintenance. Why do you assume computers don't? Even a Mac or Linux machine is going to require maintenance.
The only computer that I ever had which did not, was my VIC-20. The OS was in ROM, and I never connected it to a network. We could move back to that paradigm, if you are afraid of maintenance.
Wouldn't it suck if the car were to unconditionally burst into flames unless you were sure to also purchase an extra $1000 in "safety features" and have them installed perfectly before ever attempting to drive it?
You mean like how Congress mandated Trains come with air brakes back in the 19th century?
Or how cars have to come with seatbelts and airbags?
Wait until one of our beloved Democrats gets in. They'll put an end to all this affordable broadband and Vonage bullshit.
Well this Democrat still graciously thanks the Democrats for allowing broadband and voip to exist to begin with.
If the Republicans had had a say, they would have killed sponsorship of the Internet development claiming that the private sector was better suited to perform R&D.
$2 billion spent on windows and doors is certainly a bigger boost to the economy than $2 billion spent on a Nuclear missile sitting in a bunker.
The reason being, that after spending the money, people can now realize the direct benefit of the windows and doors, thus further continuing to profit from them.
The case of realizing the profit of the Nuclear missile is less clear. While there is an indirect realization of benefit from the deterance force stabilizing our markets... it's not as easy to measure, and there becomes a rapidly declining payback as you buy more. That is, if 100 missiles are enough, does having 2,000 really add any additional benefit?
I've been trying to understand this for years now, and I used to buy into the Republican myth that regulations were bad, requiring companies to do things was bad, etc. But I've noticed that when regulations requiring companies to do something come in, they create markets.
This is not to say that we should always look to create markets this way. Too much of this is just going to be inefficient and direct wealth creation in non-positive ways.
But Y2K was clearly a boon for our industry, as has been Sarbanes-Oxley.
Slashdot Mirror
The interesting thing is the story this is all linked to is proof of the cronyism.
Kind of dug yourself into a hole, didn't ya?
America doesn't have Socialists.
I don't understand why you guys do this. It appears as though the Republican party is so inept of ideas, that the only way you can gain traction is if you define the opposition in a negative way.
The debate ongoing in the US is not about socialism and capitalism. It is about free market capitalism, and a bizarre form of cronyism as practiced by the Republicans, where those who donate to their campaigns are rewarded with handouts from the Treasury.
You want to think of this as capitalism and those opposed to it as socialists, but that's not what it is.
As for Gov. Arnold. I don't live in CA, but from what I've seen he's proven himself to be quite a demagoguge and uniquely inept at actually solving the problems of California. Not much better than Grey Davis.
I abandoned the Republican party sometime between 1995-1998. I'm not sure quite when.
What did it for me was the GOP's completely inept handling of the budget.
I'm not particularly enamoured by the entire Democratic agenda. But I'm absolutely apalled at how badly Bush has been for our economy. What scares me, is that they don't even know it. There used to be a time when the GOP could at least be trusted to recognize the truth, but today they just keep repeating their ideology lines and sticking their head in the sand.
This article here about denying access to a technology discussion conference because of party politics is just another nail in the coffin. You've got real problems when you stop acknowledging American potential, all for your petty ideologies.
Laura Bush firing the Whitehouse Chef was a bad thing?
You know. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of moral relativists claiming that it's ok for Bush or the Republicans to be corrupt because Democrats might be corrupt to if they were in power.
What's wrong is wrong. There are no shades of grey here, not it's ok if someone else did it.
Your excusing bad behavior does not help encourage good behavior.
I didn't realize that everyone who disagrees with Bush is a socialist/marxist.
No wonder Republicans are considered out of touch with America and American values.
Sucks don't it?
Sigh. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
If you won't even be honest with yourself, how can you expect the rest of the world to trust you?
Oh come now. The only people who even know about Ward Churchill are the right-wing morons who are trying to paint all liberals as being of the same cloth.
That and the fact that you keep harping about Dan Rather. I mean come on, what are you smoking? You expect me to believe you're some moderate independent when you keep bringing up right-wing whackadoodle conspiracy stories?
Unlike you I would never be such a rabid fanatic as to attribute those comments to anyone else but those who said it. BTW, your URL is broken.
If you weren't a rabid fanatic, you wouldn't have brought up Ward Churchill, cause nobody ever heard about him until the rabid fanatic right started parading him around as proof of corrupt Liberalism.
So now you've shown your stripes.
Why do you pretend to be something other than what you are?
You know, maybe you should spend a bit more time studying who it is you claim to support.
n /articles/A383 08-2005Apr8.html?
The un-American accusations are so last year... Let's move onto things more recent.
There's some particularly good quotes that came out recently at an anarchy event sponsored by Republicans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy
Especially the lawyer who said Stalin was right in purging the country of people he disagreed with.
This isn't a fringe group... Tom Delay and Bill Frist spoke at their conference.
I've commented before I find it amusing that many self-styled Libertarians who use the "S" word as an insult are high up in movements like the Open Source movement.
I've always found that weird myself. But I think it's largely because many self-styled Libertarians are not really ideological so much as they just want cheap shit.
We're talking about Government putting together a wireless infrastructure because private industry can't do it or at least can't do it cheaper.
But there's no *Right* involved here... These cities are charging $20 or so a month to recoup their costs.
I don't see where you can justify the argument you are making.
I see where you are going.
You're saying since they didn't use the exact words, that they didn't use the concept.
I don't personally think that's a valid excuse, but whatever.
Adam Smith advocated that people should pay their fair share in proportion to the benefits they derived from the Government.
His point was that we form government to create a stable society... and a stable society with defined rules makes it easier to amass wealth.
I think more Americans should actually spend time thinking about the impact of public policy.
You are both idiots arguing without listening.
When Hillary Clinton is talking about possibly raising taxes to get the country back on track...
She's talking about balancing the fricking budget.
Right now we redistributing wealth. We're taking it away from future generations to give to the present generations. That's easy to do, because the future doesn't vote today.
It also get's more complicated in that much of our debt is being sold to foreign governments, which means we are effectively taking money away from the US to pay foreignors in the future.
If you give the government more power over the distribution of wealth and how to spend it, trust me, the government will not spend the money THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO.
As evidenced by the Republican party and the Bush administration.
More and more Democrats are coming to realize this, I hope.
Yeah, because anybody who is concerned with civil liberties is going to join the party which throws a fit anytime they see a boob on TV or someone says shit.
Not to mention the self-righteous behavior this past week in Florida.
What have republicans consistently stood for over the past 150 years?
Nothing...
Republicans only started calling out for smaller government around the time of the New Deal. And then it really only meant ending Social Security. Mortgages, banking insurance, that stuff sounded like good ideas. Of course for the past 60 years or so they've been championing expanding the military(which consumes half the discretionary budget now)... which is interesting because prior to WWII they were championing isolationism.
In the 1800's of course there was slavery. Republicans by and large opposed that, and then were viscious in wanting to beat the rebel south into submission... later turning into the party which opposed civil rights. But then back in the 1800s there were a bunch of Republicans who really liked business and they liked the idea of pro-business regulation... Tariffs, licensing fees, things which made it harder for new companies to enter the market, thus protecting existing ones from competition.
In a way, I suppose you could say that protecting business, for good or ill, has been a consistent Republican position.
So the parties... well they ebb and flow. Republicans today like big Government because they are in power, and the Big Government is doing things that they like. Democrats on the other hand are promoting states rights and small government because frankly they don't like what the government is doing to them. Yep, they've reversed positions. That's the nature of things.
Now as to this... It's not the entire democratic party who supports this, but a good portion. It was the Democrats who came up with the V-chip in the televisions, an the advisory labels on CDs... and the movie ratings system. But then that's probably a main difference... Democrats don't want to stop this stuff from being produced, they just want to help parents be aware of it. Republicans would be calling for the smut to be banned and forming book burning parties in the streets.
I don't know, nor do I care. Right now I see Republicans as a problem, primarily because of things lik the Schiavo case. I don't think Democrats would be better in a majority.
But I do think government would be better if it was gridlocked. As such I support Democrats.
Once during spring break, we drove to Chicago.
Half way there, one of the tires blew out. We stopped at a truck stop, and was able to get a new tire. I asked the mechanic what happened to the old one and he replied "Low air pressure."
So I asked my friend, "How often do you check the pressure in your tires?"
I got a blank stare.
We immediately went over to the gas station, I went inside and bought an air pressure tester and put a couple of quarters in the air pump station to fill up the rest of the tires... which were all down around 15 psi.
The morale of the story... Cars require certain care and maintenance. Why do you assume computers don't? Even a Mac or Linux machine is going to require maintenance.
The only computer that I ever had which did not, was my VIC-20. The OS was in ROM, and I never connected it to a network. We could move back to that paradigm, if you are afraid of maintenance.
Wouldn't it suck if the car were to unconditionally burst into flames unless you were sure to also purchase an extra $1000 in "safety features" and have them installed perfectly before ever attempting to drive it?
You mean like how Congress mandated Trains come with air brakes back in the 19th century?
Or how cars have to come with seatbelts and airbags?
I think you need a new analogy.
Hell, we're now spending our tax dollars to buy Viagra for seniors.
link here
As a friend of mine put it. The seniors have been screwing over the young for years... now they've got Viagra to help.
Wait until one of our beloved Democrats gets in. They'll put an end to all this affordable broadband and Vonage bullshit.
Well this Democrat still graciously thanks the Democrats for allowing broadband and voip to exist to begin with.
If the Republicans had had a say, they would have killed sponsorship of the Internet development claiming that the private sector was better suited to perform R&D.
$2 billion spent on windows and doors is certainly a bigger boost to the economy than $2 billion spent on a Nuclear missile sitting in a bunker.
The reason being, that after spending the money, people can now realize the direct benefit of the windows and doors, thus further continuing to profit from them.
The case of realizing the profit of the Nuclear missile is less clear. While there is an indirect realization of benefit from the deterance force stabilizing our markets... it's not as easy to measure, and there becomes a rapidly declining payback as you buy more. That is, if 100 missiles are enough, does having 2,000 really add any additional benefit?
It's an interesting question.
I don't think this is correct at all.
I've been trying to understand this for years now, and I used to buy into the Republican myth that regulations were bad, requiring companies to do things was bad, etc. But I've noticed that when regulations requiring companies to do something come in, they create markets.
This is not to say that we should always look to create markets this way. Too much of this is just going to be inefficient and direct wealth creation in non-positive ways.
But Y2K was clearly a boon for our industry, as has been Sarbanes-Oxley.
The PTC and other American Moralists should stop listening to Howard Stern if they are offended by it.
Just a thought...