Giving Saddam a few extra dollars would have ensured oil cooperation. Just ask Russia, France, or Germany.
But no, you're a dipshit, so you've convinced yourself that instead of a $50 million bonus to Saddam that would have bought peace for years, we should go ahead and throw away $1 trillion in an unpopular war and occupation, that would lead to an instability in the region that would likely give us someone who is NOT cooperative with a meager bonus every decade, all the while pissing off half of our other oil-bearing allies! You fucking retarded shit-flinging monkey, do you not know ANYTHING about international trade and politics? Your understanding is as shallow as Kim Kardashian's grasp of quantum theory.
You mean the Trillion in tax dollars that's going to Haliburton, Veritas Capital, WGI, Environmental Chemical, Aegis, International American Products, Eryinys, Fluor, Perini, URS, Parsons, Armor Holdings, L3, AM General, HSBC, Cummins, MerchantBridge, GlobalRisk Strategies, ControlRisks, Bechtel, Cacti, Custer Battles, Nour USA and General Dynamics?. Yeah, you bet that's what I know. That's how public tax dollars are diverted to private industry and those companies, along with multinational oil companies (the ones who paid for GW's election) were behind the push for war in the first place. It wasn't the American public pushing for war, right? So, the oil companies and other contracting companies got their payday when GW was elected, the financial industry got its payday when Obama was elected (only right since they paid for his election, right?). It's actually your understanding that's shallow, "bro".
I love the liberal mantra: "We invaded Iraq because of the oil!!!"
If that were true, where is all the oil??? Why do we not have tanker after tanker of free oil floating to the USA as we speak???
No, instead, America paid the tab for the whole ordeal and the Iraqi's get to sell their oil for their own profit.
Wow, if we're the big, bad, colonialist occupiers that the liberals and Islamists say we are, we're doing a pretty poor job of reaping the benefits of our "conquests".
The US went to war with Iraq because oil production there had been nationalized. We hate any country that nationalizes industry. It's the same reason the US hates Chavez. If you think we went to war for our freedom or their freedom or the freedom they hate us for or whatever, you're a dupe. Do you like being a dupe? We set Saddam up...the US couldn't care less about dictators. We set them up regulary and keep them in power (See Latin America). What the US does care about is access to markets for Western industry. That's just a fact. If you don't like it, maybe you should protest.
So if Einstein turns out to be correct, he is still nothing more than a liar because he lacked the ability to travel near the speed of light? Or does your reasoning only extend to the clergy?
I was raised going to church, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as being evil, mislead, or true believers trying to convince the rest of us. That said, I never trusted religion because it is quite simply man's set of rules for how to get to heaven, and its sole purpose is to be needed when in fact it isn't. These days I go by the motto, "When you die you're dead" (hat tip to James Davies) and I can't for the life of me figure out why people line up on either side of the religious debate and waste precious time arguing over that which cannot be proven.
That's a ridiculous argument and comparison. Einstein's theories are mostly mathematical and based on reasoning. Your scriptures are ancient nonsensical and inconsistent ramblings based on older myths. That comparison isn't even worth discussing.
Support our troops who have elected to give up a portion of their lives (or the entirety thereof) to defend this country and your freedom. Support them for the sacrifices they have made for you, even if you don't support the orders they must carry out under penalty of treason.
These men and women signed their lives away to protect your lifestyle, knowing full well that they may be ordered to do things that will scar them for life; they did this to protect your lifestyle. It is true that many of the conflicts our troops engage in do nothing at all to protect our lifestyle (at least, nothing obvious to the average onlooker). But, those aren't the missions these people sign on for; those are the orders they must follow, under penalties of treason.
Yes, I fully fucking support our troops, even if I don't support the men leading them.
My "freedom" was never at stake, and you know it, dipshit.
I think it was more to the point going after him would be a huge PR Issue.
1. Sue a 92 year old man
2. Sue a World War II vet.
3. Sue someone giving something to the troops that their own personal expense.
4. Do this during an election year.
Being Old, people can assume you just out of touch, at best, or that you just don't quite know what is going on. (Old people know this and play the act to get what they want)
Being a WWII vet, Society owes you for your help to save the world from Nazi and the Javanese war machine.
Giving to the troops, Every honest american should support the troops, if you don't then you are a Hippy Communist.
Election year. Those senators who are rerunning will not offer you much support, for they don't want the opponent to show that you are against the Elderly, Vets who Support the Troops.
"The point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything...that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is going to be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about." -Noam Chomsky
Yeah, because that's our purpose — to "main and kill brown babies". They're perfectly fine, and will no doubt reach their fullest potential as humans, under the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. I hear that poisoned water goes well with Afghan schoolgirls' education. In fact, I hear there is no actual tyranny and oppression in the world — unless you count the US, of course.
Dipshit.
You mean the Saddam Hussein that the US installed and armed and only decided to kill when he wouldn't play ball with our oil companies? Were you referring to the Taliban that was headed by Bin Laden? Is that the same Bin Laden family the Bush's had ties to? http://www.denverpost.com/rodriguez/ci_4319898
Who's the "Dipshit"?
People like you, who spout mindless platitudes like "Support our Troops" have the blood of innocent men, women and children on your "Dipshit" hands.
Since organic labels are cheap to buy and there is no enforcement I have heard that a number of people have learned to buy badly shaped vegetables and sell them as organic - thus getting a premium price for cheaper goods. The consumer is non the wiser, poorer, but happier?
I wonder how widespread this is? In the absence of a predator, a new life form can prosper. I see regulators as the predators would make sure organic food was in fact grown to certain rules and the fakers are their legal prey.
Personally, I shop at a co-op in Seattle that sells almost exclusively organic...certified organic retailer. I've complained to Whole Foods that since they sell so much conventional, mistakes must be made occasionally. independent studies I've read, show that organic produce really does have fewer or no pesticides, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/us/study-finds-far-less-pesticide-residue-on-organic-produce.html
Can't steer clear of all of it, but trying to reduce my exposure and throw the environment a bone in the process.
Hitler was a homicidal sociopath, a racist and a right wing fanatic
vs
Strangely enough there is now an effort being made to pronounce the Nazis a left wing movement
There's no contradiction. He's saying Hitler was a right winger, then he says some people are trying to call him a left winger.
These never ending arguments about whether a tyrant is a left or right winger. Easy to solve. Look, if a dictator sees an opportunity to get into power using left wing ideals and sees a scapegoat he can take advantage of to rile up the left wing, he'll use it to get into power. He'll promise real socialism or real communism, whatever appeals to the people who can get him elected . That doesn't mean he's a socialist, a communist or left winger. Conversely, if say an American politician sees an angry, stupid right wing he can take advantage of, he'll tell them whatever it is they want to hear. He'll say he's religious, pro gun rights, pro family values (whatever that really means)...whatever to get elected. Does that mean he's going to shrink government and eliminate taxes....Nope. It just gets him into office. None of these guys in history were any of the things they used to get elected. They're just dictators, usually with a fascist bent and they end up instituting a totalitarian government. They only called it the USSR because the people wanted socialsm, that doesn't mean that's what the USSR was, for example. The fact that people can't see this is scary. We'll end up with another Hitler, as easily mislead as people seem to be.
I think we should all go watch the south park episode about Mormons:
Gary: [to Stan] Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that.
I'd go along with your overly simplistic, South Park influenced view, but for the fact that the Mormon church uses the vast wealth(that it literally extorts from these "great" and naive families, to influence secular campaigns, social policy and basically tell their "flock" who to vote for. Uh, this is why we don't get our political and social opinions from low brow comedy cartoon programs on Fox, OK genius?
Then would the religious folks all go to hell?
"all liars"
lol
If the scripture is false, then there is no hell to which they can go. If the scripture is true, then they are telling the truth.
That's not accurate at all. If you didn't and couldn't know what the truth actually was, the best you could do is bluff. Bluffing isn't truth telling, it's closer to decieving. Even if something you blather on about ends up being true, that doesn't mean you were a truth teller, it means you were a gambler, a bluffer and maybe even a liar, since you preached with so much certainty about that which you had no idea. That's (rightly) a large part of why a lot of analytical people distrust religious people, especially clergy.
You know what's absurd? It's common place to call industrialised farming "conventional". Spraying crops with tons of pesticides that produce "edible" goods. Instead of producing a product that actually helps the environment, they use Government money (subsidizing) to lower the price of the "conventional" and industrialized methods. Calling them cheaper, rather than realizing the total cost includes the money given to the corporations by the government itself. Even if the company is not given money directly, it uses cheap foodstock (corn) which itself is given money.
It's been shown time and time again that these pesticides produce health issues in animals and people. For example Round-up, the scientific research finds that the pesticide "additives" primarily cause the issue rather than the pesticide itself.
Because the pesticide in-itself doesn't cause issues, they simply formulate a new chemicle makeup to circumvent the regulations. Which in turn often comes up as toxic. So Monsanto can simply sidestep an environmental issue by changing the formula without producing positive evidence that the new product is safe.
Monsanto makes billions while environmental concerns are simply thrown away.
You're absolutely right. I always forget about the hidden costs.
Yeah, if you could stop associating libertarians with RP libertarians and 'Tea Baggers' that would be cool, okay? You seem to have a severely twisted idea of what libertarians are and are not, and it hasn't been helped by whatever party you're affiliated with.
Thanks...
When these "Libertarians" learn what actual Libertarianism is and support those tenets, I'll stop bashing Libertarianism. Until then, I have no choice. They're only proletariat propaganda fodder, just like the Republicans and Tea Baggers.
Look, I bet you know that there's not a lot of difference between the Republican and Democrat parties, right? You're not that dumb. Libertarians are only different in the shallowest of ways...maybe they have a clue that the military should be reduced; That's roughly where the differences end. Every major belief I ever hear any of them talk about is really just a corporate wet dream.
I'm anti corporate tyranny, so until one of you convinces me otherwise (but you never will, because ironically enough, that's all any of you really hate), I'm going to blather on. You're free to ignore, right, you big Libertarian, you.
Sad, but true: organic food - and with it, all the grass-fed, free-range and other land- and labor-intensive farming - will be the purview of the rich. Or at least the moderately wealthy. The rest of you, go stand in line for pink slime, industrial eggs and speed-grown corn.
Maybe, but this article and study aside, I've been watching the price of organics drop for years. Maybe organic crops aren't as efficient as they could be yet. As far as being the purview of the wealthy, I think that's only true to a point. I've just resigned myself to spending a higher percentage of my income on food. People in the US spent 6% of their income on food in 2009, UK 9% and France 14%. There are whole regions of France who only eat organic food. I'd like to see more people in the upper income brackets buy organic food and grass-fed, organic meat, pastured poultry and eggs, exclusively. I think it's a responsibility and might have a similar effect of lowering the price, sort of like electronics "early adopters". Here in the US, we throw away 33 million tons of food per year. Maybe we don't need so much efficiency after all.
Your writing is starting to resemble a manifestos found in a crazy person home.
You might want to seek help.
Also,. look up fascist.
It's not a good bill, but you need to relax and think more. Otherwise any effort you make will go unoticed.
Anything useful to add to the discussion? Calling me "crazy" and "seek help" and to hit the dictionary, isn't a net gain for slashdot. As far as your middle of the road "it's not a good bill", i think that's quite an understatement. That's like saying Iraq wasn't a good war. And my effort hasn't gone unnocited. My karma is excellent and I metamod you (down) quite frequently.
The powers that be aren't even bothering with the pretense that this is a democracy anymore. These new laws, this law in particular, is so fascist "One of the bill's key passages is a provision that gives private companies the right to share cybersecurity data with each other and with the government 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' "...To anybody paying attention, this is just accelerating the march toward fascism in the US and these "Libertarians" and "Teabaggers" are right there marching in lock-step. Good job, geniuses....keep electing "small goverment, pro corporate" politicians. Yeah, small government for the citizens, big government for corporations with plenty of money for a powerful military and militarization of the police. You never hear anybody but Ron Paul talking about a smaller military, not any "libertarian" anyway. Of course, the dog that is Ron Paul has other fleas, like being a big corporatist himself. Remember, it's not your government that's eroding your freedom and privacy, it's the corporations who are bribing them and literally writing the legislation. Your congressman barely even understands what he's signing...he just sees the campaign contribution and knows that private industry is a "job creator". Yeah, right.
Thanks for playing, though. Outting idiots that have zero to back up their BS is FUN!
Honestly, and I'm guessing you think you're a "libertarian", which is all the rage these days (actually libertarian these days just means corporate propaganda success story), I don't really see why you'd like state capitalism, which is pretty much what we have. A polyarchy...a state capitalist mess. You'll have to let me know what's so great about welfare for corporations while people, the environment, anything that's real other than a few rich people's wallets, suffer. You'll have to let me know what's so great about that situation. Sorry if I'm not that pleased with it.
Thanks for playing, though. Outting idiots that have zero to back up their BS is FUN!
That's not really true. Give me a reason to bother. Look, capitalism sucks for a lot of people. If you don't think so, you're just not paying attention. I didn't say it was worse than the USSR or Feudalism, I just said we can do better. I don't get what your big issue with that is.
Just remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions...and saying that 5-6 billion people are better off dead can certainly lead to dark places.
By the way, why are you so pessimistic? I'll admit that our current situation is quite worrisome, but what about the effects of new technologies and discoveries? Don't you think technology can help us overcome our problems? In particular, nuclear energy represents many millions of times as much energy as fossil fuels, so why will we have to cut back to far less than what we can sustain on fossil fuels?
"As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance." -John Dewey.
We're living in a polyarchy, not a democracy and big business calls the shots. No, I don't think technology can help us overcome our problems because technology is just a tool. It's cool, I love it, but in the hands of people who only care about profit, no real good can ever come of it. Those forces have only gotten stronger since Dewey's day. You can't accidentally save the world as a side note, while focusing on the bottom line. It just doesn't work that way. A lot of minds will have to change and I see the opposite of that happening. Anybody who's not pessimistic just isn't paying attention.
If you think China is the land of unregulated capitalism, *you* need to pick up a book.
I do nothing but pick up books. Look, China is a lot of things. It's unregulated capitalism, it's got a totalitarian streak, it's got a dab of socialism. If you think China doesn't have an element of capitalism, I invite you to enjoy a Big Mac in Forbidden City.
Not socialism? I think you meant it was not "communism". The USSR was definitely socialist (centrally controlled bank, centrally planned economy, government owns everything, no free enterprise...). It was definitely not communist, as that requires an eventual dismantling of the government. Socialism fails because you can't plan an economy with much precision. The USSR demonstrated this quite well, and China had horrible sanitation and humanitarian problems before it adopted capitalism, too. Not to mention a lot more starving people.
If you think having a tyrannical ruler is socialism, then you're just propaganda fodder. It had elements of socialism, just like the US has elements of democracy, right?;)
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
When you have an organization with only one goal (profit) and a group of people (shareholders) with the same goal who vote on issues that can have an effect on people who are not shareholders and cannot vote, that's not a democracy.
Is the US democratic because minors which are bound by laws can not vote, or how about other countries they may receive aid or other things from the US they don't vote in US elections?
Also, most shareholders are actually just mutual fund holders who don't have any real power over the actual real world decsions of any company or who the board is. They own a ridiculously small piece of 100 companies Sounds real democratic.
Your ignorance strikes again most share holders are not mutual fund holders, mutual funds held 23% of all publicly traded stock in 2005.
Actually, if you want to be technical about it, the US is not a democracy, never has been and wasn't designed to be. The US is a Polyarchy. It's controlled by corporations and the investor class, so your argument in comparing corporations to the US, not that they compare at all, is completely invalid.
As for my ignorance striking again, the mutual fund vs a few ultra-rich majority shareholders example doesn't matter a bit. There's still nothing democratic about corporations, as they're not popularly controlled. Nice stats though!
Slashdot Mirror
and it's their in many games
there in many games
heads up, those companies hire people and pay them.
" the financial industry got its payday when Obama" I'm not sure what the means? Are you referring to the programs Bush started?
Obama is tighten regulations, the republicans are fighting.
So, are you delusional?
I can see how it might seem to someone like you (an ignorant fool) that I'm delusional. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html
Could your argument be any more hollow, bro?
Giving Saddam a few extra dollars would have ensured oil cooperation. Just ask Russia, France, or Germany.
But no, you're a dipshit, so you've convinced yourself that instead of a $50 million bonus to Saddam that would have bought peace for years, we should go ahead and throw away $1 trillion in an unpopular war and occupation, that would lead to an instability in the region that would likely give us someone who is NOT cooperative with a meager bonus every decade, all the while pissing off half of our other oil-bearing allies! You fucking retarded shit-flinging monkey, do you not know ANYTHING about international trade and politics? Your understanding is as shallow as Kim Kardashian's grasp of quantum theory.
You mean the Trillion in tax dollars that's going to Haliburton, Veritas Capital, WGI, Environmental Chemical, Aegis, International American Products, Eryinys, Fluor, Perini, URS, Parsons, Armor Holdings, L3, AM General, HSBC, Cummins, MerchantBridge, GlobalRisk Strategies, ControlRisks, Bechtel, Cacti, Custer Battles, Nour USA and General Dynamics?. Yeah, you bet that's what I know. That's how public tax dollars are diverted to private industry and those companies, along with multinational oil companies (the ones who paid for GW's election) were behind the push for war in the first place. It wasn't the American public pushing for war, right? So, the oil companies and other contracting companies got their payday when GW was elected, the financial industry got its payday when Obama was elected (only right since they paid for his election, right?). It's actually your understanding that's shallow, "bro".
I love the liberal mantra: "We invaded Iraq because of the oil!!!" If that were true, where is all the oil??? Why do we not have tanker after tanker of free oil floating to the USA as we speak??? No, instead, America paid the tab for the whole ordeal and the Iraqi's get to sell their oil for their own profit. Wow, if we're the big, bad, colonialist occupiers that the liberals and Islamists say we are, we're doing a pretty poor job of reaping the benefits of our "conquests".
The US went to war with Iraq because oil production there had been nationalized. We hate any country that nationalizes industry. It's the same reason the US hates Chavez. If you think we went to war for our freedom or their freedom or the freedom they hate us for or whatever, you're a dupe. Do you like being a dupe? We set Saddam up...the US couldn't care less about dictators. We set them up regulary and keep them in power (See Latin America). What the US does care about is access to markets for Western industry. That's just a fact. If you don't like it, maybe you should protest.
So if Einstein turns out to be correct, he is still nothing more than a liar because he lacked the ability to travel near the speed of light? Or does your reasoning only extend to the clergy?
I was raised going to church, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as being evil, mislead, or true believers trying to convince the rest of us. That said, I never trusted religion because it is quite simply man's set of rules for how to get to heaven, and its sole purpose is to be needed when in fact it isn't. These days I go by the motto, "When you die you're dead" (hat tip to James Davies) and I can't for the life of me figure out why people line up on either side of the religious debate and waste precious time arguing over that which cannot be proven.
That's a ridiculous argument and comparison. Einstein's theories are mostly mathematical and based on reasoning. Your scriptures are ancient nonsensical and inconsistent ramblings based on older myths. That comparison isn't even worth discussing.
You're the dipshit, still.
Support our troops who have elected to give up a portion of their lives (or the entirety thereof) to defend this country and your freedom. Support them for the sacrifices they have made for you, even if you don't support the orders they must carry out under penalty of treason.
These men and women signed their lives away to protect your lifestyle, knowing full well that they may be ordered to do things that will scar them for life; they did this to protect your lifestyle. It is true that many of the conflicts our troops engage in do nothing at all to protect our lifestyle (at least, nothing obvious to the average onlooker). But, those aren't the missions these people sign on for; those are the orders they must follow, under penalties of treason.
Yes, I fully fucking support our troops, even if I don't support the men leading them.
My "freedom" was never at stake, and you know it, dipshit.
I think it was more to the point going after him would be a huge PR Issue.
1. Sue a 92 year old man 2. Sue a World War II vet. 3. Sue someone giving something to the troops that their own personal expense. 4. Do this during an election year.
Being Old, people can assume you just out of touch, at best, or that you just don't quite know what is going on. (Old people know this and play the act to get what they want)
Being a WWII vet, Society owes you for your help to save the world from Nazi and the Javanese war machine.
Giving to the troops, Every honest american should support the troops, if you don't then you are a Hippy Communist.
Election year. Those senators who are rerunning will not offer you much support, for they don't want the opponent to show that you are against the Elderly, Vets who Support the Troops.
"The point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything...that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is going to be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about." -Noam Chomsky
Yeah, because that's our purpose — to "main and kill brown babies". They're perfectly fine, and will no doubt reach their fullest potential as humans, under the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. I hear that poisoned water goes well with Afghan schoolgirls' education. In fact, I hear there is no actual tyranny and oppression in the world — unless you count the US, of course.
Dipshit.
You mean the Saddam Hussein that the US installed and armed and only decided to kill when he wouldn't play ball with our oil companies? Were you referring to the Taliban that was headed by Bin Laden? Is that the same Bin Laden family the Bush's had ties to? http://www.denverpost.com/rodriguez/ci_4319898
Who's the "Dipshit"?
People like you, who spout mindless platitudes like "Support our Troops" have the blood of innocent men, women and children on your "Dipshit" hands.
Since organic labels are cheap to buy and there is no enforcement I have heard that a number of people have learned to buy badly shaped vegetables and sell them as organic - thus getting a premium price for cheaper goods. The consumer is non the wiser, poorer, but happier?
I wonder how widespread this is? In the absence of a predator, a new life form can prosper. I see regulators as the predators would make sure organic food was in fact grown to certain rules and the fakers are their legal prey.
Personally, I shop at a co-op in Seattle that sells almost exclusively organic...certified organic retailer. I've complained to Whole Foods that since they sell so much conventional, mistakes must be made occasionally. independent studies I've read, show that organic produce really does have fewer or no pesticides, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/us/study-finds-far-less-pesticide-residue-on-organic-produce.html Can't steer clear of all of it, but trying to reduce my exposure and throw the environment a bone in the process.
Hitler was a homicidal sociopath, a racist and a right wing fanatic
vs
Strangely enough there is now an effort being made to pronounce the Nazis a left wing movement
There's no contradiction. He's saying Hitler was a right winger, then he says some people are trying to call him a left winger.
These never ending arguments about whether a tyrant is a left or right winger. Easy to solve. Look, if a dictator sees an opportunity to get into power using left wing ideals and sees a scapegoat he can take advantage of to rile up the left wing, he'll use it to get into power. He'll promise real socialism or real communism, whatever appeals to the people who can get him elected . That doesn't mean he's a socialist, a communist or left winger. Conversely, if say an American politician sees an angry, stupid right wing he can take advantage of, he'll tell them whatever it is they want to hear. He'll say he's religious, pro gun rights, pro family values (whatever that really means)...whatever to get elected. Does that mean he's going to shrink government and eliminate taxes....Nope. It just gets him into office. None of these guys in history were any of the things they used to get elected. They're just dictators, usually with a fascist bent and they end up instituting a totalitarian government. They only called it the USSR because the people wanted socialsm, that doesn't mean that's what the USSR was, for example. The fact that people can't see this is scary. We'll end up with another Hitler, as easily mislead as people seem to be.
I think we should all go watch the south park episode about Mormons:
Gary: [to Stan] Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that.
I'd go along with your overly simplistic, South Park influenced view, but for the fact that the Mormon church uses the vast wealth(that it literally extorts from these "great" and naive families, to influence secular campaigns, social policy and basically tell their "flock" who to vote for. Uh, this is why we don't get our political and social opinions from low brow comedy cartoon programs on Fox, OK genius?
Then would the religious folks all go to hell? "all liars" lol
If the scripture is false, then there is no hell to which they can go. If the scripture is true, then they are telling the truth.
That's not accurate at all. If you didn't and couldn't know what the truth actually was, the best you could do is bluff. Bluffing isn't truth telling, it's closer to decieving. Even if something you blather on about ends up being true, that doesn't mean you were a truth teller, it means you were a gambler, a bluffer and maybe even a liar, since you preached with so much certainty about that which you had no idea. That's (rightly) a large part of why a lot of analytical people distrust religious people, especially clergy.
You know what's absurd? It's common place to call industrialised farming "conventional". Spraying crops with tons of pesticides that produce "edible" goods. Instead of producing a product that actually helps the environment, they use Government money (subsidizing) to lower the price of the "conventional" and industrialized methods. Calling them cheaper, rather than realizing the total cost includes the money given to the corporations by the government itself. Even if the company is not given money directly, it uses cheap foodstock (corn) which itself is given money. It's been shown time and time again that these pesticides produce health issues in animals and people. For example Round-up, the scientific research finds that the pesticide "additives" primarily cause the issue rather than the pesticide itself. Because the pesticide in-itself doesn't cause issues, they simply formulate a new chemicle makeup to circumvent the regulations. Which in turn often comes up as toxic. So Monsanto can simply sidestep an environmental issue by changing the formula without producing positive evidence that the new product is safe. Monsanto makes billions while environmental concerns are simply thrown away.
You're absolutely right. I always forget about the hidden costs.
Yeah, if you could stop associating libertarians with RP libertarians and 'Tea Baggers' that would be cool, okay? You seem to have a severely twisted idea of what libertarians are and are not, and it hasn't been helped by whatever party you're affiliated with.
Thanks...
When these "Libertarians" learn what actual Libertarianism is and support those tenets, I'll stop bashing Libertarianism. Until then, I have no choice. They're only proletariat propaganda fodder, just like the Republicans and Tea Baggers.
Look, I bet you know that there's not a lot of difference between the Republican and Democrat parties, right? You're not that dumb. Libertarians are only different in the shallowest of ways...maybe they have a clue that the military should be reduced; That's roughly where the differences end. Every major belief I ever hear any of them talk about is really just a corporate wet dream.
I'm anti corporate tyranny, so until one of you convinces me otherwise (but you never will, because ironically enough, that's all any of you really hate), I'm going to blather on. You're free to ignore, right, you big Libertarian, you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
Sad, but true: organic food - and with it, all the grass-fed, free-range and other land- and labor-intensive farming - will be the purview of the rich. Or at least the moderately wealthy. The rest of you, go stand in line for pink slime, industrial eggs and speed-grown corn.
Maybe, but this article and study aside, I've been watching the price of organics drop for years. Maybe organic crops aren't as efficient as they could be yet. As far as being the purview of the wealthy, I think that's only true to a point. I've just resigned myself to spending a higher percentage of my income on food. People in the US spent 6% of their income on food in 2009, UK 9% and France 14%. There are whole regions of France who only eat organic food. I'd like to see more people in the upper income brackets buy organic food and grass-fed, organic meat, pastured poultry and eggs, exclusively. I think it's a responsibility and might have a similar effect of lowering the price, sort of like electronics "early adopters". Here in the US, we throw away 33 million tons of food per year. Maybe we don't need so much efficiency after all.
Your writing is starting to resemble a manifestos found in a crazy person home.
You might want to seek help.
Also,. look up fascist.
It's not a good bill, but you need to relax and think more. Otherwise any effort you make will go unoticed.
Anything useful to add to the discussion? Calling me "crazy" and "seek help" and to hit the dictionary, isn't a net gain for slashdot. As far as your middle of the road "it's not a good bill", i think that's quite an understatement. That's like saying Iraq wasn't a good war. And my effort hasn't gone unnocited. My karma is excellent and I metamod you (down) quite frequently.
The powers that be aren't even bothering with the pretense that this is a democracy anymore. These new laws, this law in particular, is so fascist "One of the bill's key passages is a provision that gives private companies the right to share cybersecurity data with each other and with the government 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' "...To anybody paying attention, this is just accelerating the march toward fascism in the US and these "Libertarians" and "Teabaggers" are right there marching in lock-step. Good job, geniuses....keep electing "small goverment, pro corporate" politicians. Yeah, small government for the citizens, big government for corporations with plenty of money for a powerful military and militarization of the police. You never hear anybody but Ron Paul talking about a smaller military, not any "libertarian" anyway. Of course, the dog that is Ron Paul has other fleas, like being a big corporatist himself. Remember, it's not your government that's eroding your freedom and privacy, it's the corporations who are bribing them and literally writing the legislation. Your congressman barely even understands what he's signing...he just sees the campaign contribution and knows that private industry is a "job creator". Yeah, right.
LMAO!!
Yeah, that's what I thought.
You've got nothing.
Thanks for playing, though. Outting idiots that have zero to back up their BS is FUN!
Honestly, and I'm guessing you think you're a "libertarian", which is all the rage these days (actually libertarian these days just means corporate propaganda success story), I don't really see why you'd like state capitalism, which is pretty much what we have. A polyarchy...a state capitalist mess. You'll have to let me know what's so great about welfare for corporations while people, the environment, anything that's real other than a few rich people's wallets, suffer. You'll have to let me know what's so great about that situation. Sorry if I'm not that pleased with it.
LMAO!!
Yeah, that's what I thought.
You've got nothing.
Thanks for playing, though. Outting idiots that have zero to back up their BS is FUN!
That's not really true. Give me a reason to bother. Look, capitalism sucks for a lot of people. If you don't think so, you're just not paying attention. I didn't say it was worse than the USSR or Feudalism, I just said we can do better. I don't get what your big issue with that is.
He basically said that capitalism is great because it's brought a lot of people out of poverty (wrong).
[citation needed]
Everything I've been able to find says you're wrong and he's absolutely correct. Either cite or GTFO & STFU.
I fucking responded to his dumb shit and I'm tired of responding to this thread.
U MAD?
Yeah, I'm sure you are "tired". Especially as you have exactly zero to rebut it with except empty ranting.
BTW dumbshit, you can respond as many times to a /. thread as you like until it goes into archive status. You don't get to cop-out that easy.
Face it, you've been outted for spewing stupid non-factual bullshit.
Take your "FAIL" like a man.
Methinks you dislike being called on your bullshit.
You need to wash that mouth out with soap. Tsk tsk.
Just remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions...and saying that 5-6 billion people are better off dead can certainly lead to dark places.
By the way, why are you so pessimistic? I'll admit that our current situation is quite worrisome, but what about the effects of new technologies and discoveries? Don't you think technology can help us overcome our problems? In particular, nuclear energy represents many millions of times as much energy as fossil fuels, so why will we have to cut back to far less than what we can sustain on fossil fuels?
"As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance." -John Dewey.
We're living in a polyarchy, not a democracy and big business calls the shots. No, I don't think technology can help us overcome our problems because technology is just a tool. It's cool, I love it, but in the hands of people who only care about profit, no real good can ever come of it. Those forces have only gotten stronger since Dewey's day. You can't accidentally save the world as a side note, while focusing on the bottom line. It just doesn't work that way. A lot of minds will have to change and I see the opposite of that happening. Anybody who's not pessimistic just isn't paying attention.
If you think China is the land of unregulated capitalism, *you* need to pick up a book.
I do nothing but pick up books. Look, China is a lot of things. It's unregulated capitalism, it's got a totalitarian streak, it's got a dab of socialism. If you think China doesn't have an element of capitalism, I invite you to enjoy a Big Mac in Forbidden City.
Not socialism? I think you meant it was not "communism". The USSR was definitely socialist (centrally controlled bank, centrally planned economy, government owns everything, no free enterprise...). It was definitely not communist, as that requires an eventual dismantling of the government. Socialism fails because you can't plan an economy with much precision. The USSR demonstrated this quite well, and China had horrible sanitation and humanitarian problems before it adopted capitalism, too. Not to mention a lot more starving people.
If you think having a tyrannical ruler is socialism, then you're just propaganda fodder. It had elements of socialism, just like the US has elements of democracy, right? ;)
Huh. So you eat chicken and beef, both animals that have been "screwed around with" by humans for tens of thousands of years?
Maybe you eat grains (screwed around with)? Legumes (ditto)?
Same reason I wouldn't eat your mom.
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
When you have an organization with only one goal (profit) and a group of people (shareholders) with the same goal who vote on issues that can have an effect on people who are not shareholders and cannot vote, that's not a democracy.
Is the US democratic because minors which are bound by laws can not vote, or how about other countries they may receive aid or other things from the US they don't vote in US elections?
Also, most shareholders are actually just mutual fund holders who don't have any real power over the actual real world decsions of any company or who the board is. They own a ridiculously small piece of 100 companies Sounds real democratic.
Your ignorance strikes again most share holders are not mutual fund holders, mutual funds held 23% of all publicly traded stock in 2005.
Actually, if you want to be technical about it, the US is not a democracy, never has been and wasn't designed to be. The US is a Polyarchy. It's controlled by corporations and the investor class, so your argument in comparing corporations to the US, not that they compare at all, is completely invalid. As for my ignorance striking again, the mutual fund vs a few ultra-rich majority shareholders example doesn't matter a bit. There's still nothing democratic about corporations, as they're not popularly controlled. Nice stats though!