I think it's interesting that what is normally a dry subject is generating so much public interest. I'm glad to see the American public sitting up and taking notice of important things for a change instead of just vegetating in front of reality TV
Indeed. Dangerous (good) things are in store when the public realizes they actually have power when they unite and make demands.
Conservatives and frightened Democrats prevented a massive take-over by the political class.
:-) Sorry, but that reminds me of how some Trotskyists liked to insist that the Soviet Union, before it broke up, had ceased to be socialist and instead was ruled by a "bureaucratic class" which somehow qualified it as capitalist.
Let's not fool ourselves here. There is no "political class". We only have the super-rich, who are in power, and all the others, who aren't.
It seems to me that an argument as to why a certain law should be delegated to the states is a thousand times better than an argument as to why the constitution demands it.
I've got a better idea. How about we stop arguing over whose interpretation of the Constitution, and whose interpretation of the Bible, and whose interpretation of God and the State is best, and just discuss whose *ideas* are best?
How about we spend our time as rational human beings instead of parroting parrots?
I've taken on a new saying: Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it is as to overlook what it to be.
But the only thing I was addressing was your (mis)use of the word "socialism".
Your point about the 10th amendment being used as toilet paper is a legitimate one, but I don't support anything just because it's part of the holy constitution. I think it detracts us from the question, "what should be done"?
That's one of the key features of fascism, blurring of the difference between the state and the ruling class inside of a capitalist economy.
The characterization of it being socialism for corporations is not far off. It's against the nature of capitalism, but history has shown us that it happens sometimes. Why is another matter.
You confuse me greatly. Since the New Deal, we've steadily gone closer and closer to free, unrestrained capitalism (you should check out the stock market these days). Social services have been only declining ever sense. Some of the greatest cuts happened under Clinton. Even if I concede the idea that socialism means social services, your view of the direction of America in the past 70 or so years doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Maybe you think socialism means "nanny state". If so, please find a better term and stop embarrassing yourself.
Do you believe that including third party candidates - such as the Constitution, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Socialist parties - in the presidential debates would improve the debates and make our election more democratic?
If no, why not? If yes, why have you not announced that you support the inclusion of third party candidates at any point in the primary or presidential campaigns?
Neither of which requires that they have their own e-mail address.
When I was 5 I got letters from grandparents and other family members. I also didn't have my own street address and, unless asked to, probably didn't check the mail box on my own. Those letters went to my parents address and were probably even addressed to them in some circumstances.
And now you spend your time telling kids to get off your lawn?
Another things about America, which you bring up: we use the word "middle class" to describe almost everyone. "Hard-working people, struggling to get by" are "middle class". What kind of makes me sick is the way it's implied that the lower class (i.e., those poorer than you) aren't worthy of defense.
Heck, we don't even have any idea of what the word "class" means in this country. Somehow, having employment and living on the wage you received went from being the definition the word "proletarian" to being called "middle class".
Well, I use it loosely, but I mean that it's massive government spending, even deficit spending, in order to keep the economy alive. But the spending goes to (military) industries, not to giving jobs and money in the hands of consumers. It's sort of Keynesianism in reverse. Consider the way World War II ended the Great Depression.
I doubt they actually have plans of this being at all useful anywhere in the future. But you won't get there unless unless you start, right?
And just as importantly, it's probably another manifestation of the corporate Keynesianism that's one of the most important functions of our "military-industrial complex".
I have to agree with you and the GP poster. Although it would be opposed by most, possibly even including myself, it might do good to have one's record of deletion/non-deletion votes in previous battles be indicated.
As, as I've already said on Slashdot, I can't understand the thinking of someone who would want to limit the amount available.
Further, Wikipedia has decided to prefer the bias of Western media over a search for the truth - including from 0those I agree with (eg the President of Cuba) and from those I disagree with (eg the President of Iran).
I've got no idea. I don't understand the stock market. I have a moral objection to gaining money by throwing money around, producing nothing yet receiving funds created by the workers in the industries that you invest in.... but that's not my point. I simply don't understand how one trades stock effectively for their own sake (which is the only sake relevant to stock traders, of course). I didn't intend to make moral arguments here, I just kinda can't help myself sometimes. Please forgive me.
Back to my original point. I don't understand how stock markets work, but I assume stock traders as a group, on average, know how to benefit their individual selves. Stock traders are staying the hell away from the market right now. Thus, I find it reasonable to stick to my original, GP point in the face of an individual argument that I don't understand any better than any other argument.
I really don't understand this offense people feel from people who don't want to adopt English. Why is it "rude"?
Secondly, everybody wants to learn English. What do you fear, though, from having an organic, living Spanish-speaking community within the United States?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's interesting that what is normally a dry subject is generating so much public interest. I'm glad to see the American public sitting up and taking notice of important things for a change instead of just vegetating in front of reality TV
Indeed. Dangerous (good) things are in store when the public realizes they actually have power when they unite and make demands.
The government is supposed to work for us
The unasked question: According to who?
Conservatives and frightened Democrats prevented a massive take-over by the political class.
:-) Sorry, but that reminds me of how some Trotskyists liked to insist that the Soviet Union, before it broke up, had ceased to be socialist and instead was ruled by a "bureaucratic class" which somehow qualified it as capitalist.
Let's not fool ourselves here. There is no "political class". We only have the super-rich, who are in power, and all the others, who aren't.
It seems to me that an argument as to why a certain law should be delegated to the states is a thousand times better than an argument as to why the constitution demands it.
I've got a better idea. How about we stop arguing over whose interpretation of the Constitution, and whose interpretation of the Bible, and whose interpretation of God and the State is best, and just discuss whose *ideas* are best?
How about we spend our time as rational human beings instead of parroting parrots?
I've taken on a new saying:
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it is as to overlook what it to be.
But the only thing I was addressing was your (mis)use of the word "socialism".
Your point about the 10th amendment being used as toilet paper is a legitimate one, but I don't support anything just because it's part of the holy constitution. I think it detracts us from the question, "what should be done"?
That's one of the key features of fascism, blurring of the difference between the state and the ruling class inside of a capitalist economy.
The characterization of it being socialism for corporations is not far off. It's against the nature of capitalism, but history has shown us that it happens sometimes. Why is another matter.
You confuse me greatly. Since the New Deal, we've steadily gone closer and closer to free, unrestrained capitalism (you should check out the stock market these days). Social services have been only declining ever sense. Some of the greatest cuts happened under Clinton. Even if I concede the idea that socialism means social services, your view of the direction of America in the past 70 or so years doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Maybe you think socialism means "nanny state". If so, please find a better term and stop embarrassing yourself.
Do you believe that including third party candidates - such as the Constitution, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Socialist parties - in the presidential debates would improve the debates and make our election more democratic?
If no, why not? If yes, why have you not announced that you support the inclusion of third party candidates at any point in the primary or presidential campaigns?
I hate to be the one to say it, but those kids really do mess up the lawn.
God damn, you win this thread.
New theory: God is tiny vibrating strings!
Neither of which requires that they have their own e-mail address.
When I was 5 I got letters from grandparents and other family members. I also didn't have my own street address and, unless asked to, probably didn't check the mail box on my own. Those letters went to my parents address and were probably even addressed to them in some circumstances.
And now you spend your time telling kids to get off your lawn?
Another things about America, which you bring up: we use the word "middle class" to describe almost everyone. "Hard-working people, struggling to get by" are "middle class". What kind of makes me sick is the way it's implied that the lower class (i.e., those poorer than you) aren't worthy of defense.
Heck, we don't even have any idea of what the word "class" means in this country. Somehow, having employment and living on the wage you received went from being the definition the word "proletarian" to being called "middle class".
This is above my head, but how do you pin down the source of an unknown Eror in 10,000 punch cards?
Obvious question: Why didn't you just change it back?
Well, I use it loosely, but I mean that it's massive government spending, even deficit spending, in order to keep the economy alive. But the spending goes to (military) industries, not to giving jobs and money in the hands of consumers. It's sort of Keynesianism in reverse. Consider the way World War II ended the Great Depression.
I doubt they actually have plans of this being at all useful anywhere in the future. But you won't get there unless unless you start, right?
And just as importantly, it's probably another manifestation of the corporate Keynesianism that's one of the most important functions of our "military-industrial complex".
( ) Toothpaste should not be the subject of legislation
:-D
the is, the amount of information available to people
I have to agree with you and the GP poster. Although it would be opposed by most, possibly even including myself, it might do good to have one's record of deletion/non-deletion votes in previous battles be indicated.
As, as I've already said on Slashdot, I can't understand the thinking of someone who would want to limit the amount available.
Further, Wikipedia has decided to prefer the bias of Western media over a search for the truth - including from 0those I agree with (eg the President of Cuba) and from those I disagree with (eg the President of Iran).
I've got no idea. I don't understand the stock market. I have a moral objection to gaining money by throwing money around, producing nothing yet receiving funds created by the workers in the industries that you invest in.... but that's not my point. I simply don't understand how one trades stock effectively for their own sake (which is the only sake relevant to stock traders, of course). I didn't intend to make moral arguments here, I just kinda can't help myself sometimes. Please forgive me.
Back to my original point. I don't understand how stock markets work, but I assume stock traders as a group, on average, know how to benefit their individual selves. Stock traders are staying the hell away from the market right now. Thus, I find it reasonable to stick to my original, GP point in the face of an individual argument that I don't understand any better than any other argument.
I merely detest it when people decide to move to another country, and don't attempt to bother communicating decently with the locals.
This reminds me of the opponents of gay marriage, who are outraged about something that does them no harm.
I really don't understand this offense people feel from people who don't want to adopt English. Why is it "rude"?
Secondly, everybody wants to learn English. What do you fear, though, from having an organic, living Spanish-speaking community within the United States?
Culture division.
Creating segments of the population that has difficulty communicating with other segments leads to an US v Them scenario
Having an official language just helps define "them" and why they are the ones in the wrong.
I could not make sense of anything you just said.