You can't make this sort of thing happen with massive subsidies; people will eat up the subsidies, and when they stop, they just revert to doing things the old, cheap way. Furthermore, the Sahara is not politically stable enough for anybody to make that kind of investment.
Why are you fixated on Europe? If you RTFP, you will find "rest of world".
Because Europe is part of the rest of the world, so if a proposition isn't true for Europe it obviously isn't true for "the rest of the world". Logic, you know.
In addition, Europe is the cause of a lot of these policies, and it also has the power to stop them.
And I actually know Europe well, although I think most of the points you list apply even more in Asia, Africa, and Oceania (well, they usually don't bother with drones, they just send men to kill people they don't like).
And - where something originated won't have any impact on consequences of actions done now except maybe in your mind dis/honoring your ancestors.
I don't mean "originates" as in "far distant ancestors", I mean European governments today are responsible for a lot of this crap and pushing for it in international agreements. And they use anti-Americanism as a smokescreen to distract from their own domestic shenanigans. And that very much has an impact on consequences, because if you don't like the consequences, you need to understand their causes and you need to find the people who can bring about change.
Apple's aluminum-and-glass extravaganza probably costs more energy and raw materials to produce than two Android phones. So, I wouldn't bet that buying Apple's overpriced designer phones and keeping them a little longer is actually better for the environment.
This European ruling is still more limited than US fair use rights, and the entire repressive copyright regime was created by international organizations in the first place, mainly driven by Europeans.
Instead if being an example of the benefits of big government, this is an example of big government passing more laws to fix problems that it itself created.
Unless they are deliberately aiming a signal at us, we wouldn't be seeing anything. Even regular analog transmissions are impossible to see at this distance. And modern radio signals (cellular, encrypted, compressed) just look like low level random noise anyway.
First by creating an enforcement regime, which requires that certain minimum guidelines be met in order to rent living space. This is not controversial anywhere but in the minds of an anti-government extremist.
If you set those minimal requirements, their owners will renovate accordingly and then charge market rates for those new units. If people couldn't afford to rent these kinds of nicer units before at market rates, how will they be able to rent them after the regulation is in place?
In fact, what these regulations really are mostly about is middle class folks trying to get what they consider riff-raff out of their neighborhoods. Don't try to pretend that this helps poor people, because it doesn't.
My comment was a remark on the recent phenomenon of these laws suddenly becoming "controversial" (scare quotes mine) in the minds of the damaged few who...
Stop the irrelevant bloviation and stick to the facts, OK?
I'm asking you: how does Obama actually determine that the people he is killing are "Al Quaeda operatives"? What kind of recourse exists there? What checks and balances are there.
Since you can't come up with any, sound like the answer is: "none".
More importantly though is the question of how we get those in power to deal with the issues we really care about. What you're suggesting as a solution seems to be for people to go and vote for a third party candidate. That's all well and good in Pollyanna Land, but in the system we currently live in it would be about as effective as sticking your head in the sand
No, you live in "Pollyanna Land" if you think that strategic voting is going to get you anywhere. And, in particular, if the two candidates are about equally bad (and Obama and Romney were for all practical purposes), you really lose nothing by voting for a third party andidate.
you could have found out (without sounding like a major asshole) that I advocate for non-partisan redistricting, ranked choice voting for instant runoff elections, and campaign finance reform.
Ah, a litany of progressive policy items. Do you actually think you're fooling anyone by presenting these as if they were politically neutral? And to top it all off, you use more rudeness.
I don't think I have jumped to conclusions about you at all.
The US should become less involved in foreign military adventures; but European leaders come begging for US military help whenever Americans try
TSA really is no different from security checks at European airports
Every nation treats its citizens differently from non-citizens, and as a non-European in Europe you probably have fewer rights than as a non-American in the US
You are right: health care is a human right, the UN says so. But that refers to basic health care costing a few hundred dollars a year, it does not refer to a full American health care plan, and it doesn't mean that you should be able to get basically unlimited coverage at other people's expense regardless of what stupid decisions you make
"Liberal" is not a more accurate term. There is nothing "liberal" about US "Liberals". Liberalism means support for individual liberties and free markets, not massive government regulation, corporate welfare, and taxation.
Whether Obama "is" a progressive is about as relevant as whether child raping priests "are" Catholic. The question is: who elected the guy and how keeps supporting him, and that clearly is progressives. And progressives also contribute to keeping this system in place by casting everything into an us-vs-them framework, in which the Democrats may be imperfect, but they are still always better than the Republicans; you just did it again
No, in fact it is not clear that "Republicans would be more than happy to have this sort of policy in place." There are Republicans who oppose this, just like there are Democrats who do. And the way to make change happen is to support candidates based on their issues and positions, not their party affiliation. But as long as US politics continues to be dominated by your kind of knee-jerk sports-team mentality, bad politicians like Bush and Obama will get elected.
I voted for Obama the first term because he promised to put an end to the abuses of presidential power by the Bush administration, to stop corporate welfare, and to stop the intrusion of the US government into the private lives of US citizens. As someone who voted for him, I'm entitled to say: Obama has failed miserably.
Perhaps more importantly, it is even more difficult to challenge the president of your party when the other party is vehemently and religiously against your president and party just for existing.
Oh, so true. And as soon as progressives Democrats start showing some civility and tolerance towards other political views, instead of caricaturing everybody who disagrees with them as a "one percenter" or "neocon puppet", and as soon as progressives and Democrats start thinking about issues instead of getting "their man" elected, perhaps we can actually make some political progress again. The drivel you have been writing doesn't give me much hope.
And how do you know they are high ranking al Quaeda operatives? Because Obama says so?
The proper branch to make that decision is the judicial branch. I'd feel a bit more comfortable with this if the US conducted a public trial and these people were found guilty in a court of law. The accused might have an opportunity to defend themselves via remote, and a judge makes the ultimate decision.
But the executive branch being judge, jury and executioner is unconstitutional and dangerous.
Historically, illegal rentals hurt the most marginal members of society. Immigrant workers, paying exorbitant rents to share a one bedroom cold-water apartment with six other families for example.
And explain to me: how does regulation fix that? How do those poor immigrants find apartments at what they are able to pay once you regulate?
Higher prices, higher barriers to entry, and less choice are the price we pay for a safer life.
Just because some of those choices are good doesn't mean that more are better, or that everything purporting to be a "health and safety regulation" actually is.
Otherwise, we can go back to the good old days when rivers caught on fire, entire blocks of buildings burned down because of a stray candle, and horse meat was a large component of beef products.
More dumb strawman arguments. Is that kind of blind idiocy all that progressives are capable of?
Besides, there are, in fact, other ways for government to protect the environment besides regulation. But, of course, you wouldn't understand that.
Slashdot Mirror
Having a talented head huckster helps stockholders, but it hurts customers, who get stuck with bad, overpriced products that are unsuitable for them.
I stopped using iOS and Apple products because it was so awful inside the walled garden.
I'm still out a couple of thousand dollars in DRM-infested Apple-only content.
No, it merely stole features from PalmOS and Symbian, slapped an Apple name on it, and then marketed the hell out of it.
I have no problem with paying for things; I buy lots of Android apps.
But it is stupid to over-pay for things, and iPhone users are doing just that.
"The bums" have tried, but it's failing:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-desertec-solar-energy-project-has-run-into-trouble-a-867077.html
You can't make this sort of thing happen with massive subsidies; people will eat up the subsidies, and when they stop, they just revert to doing things the old, cheap way. Furthermore, the Sahara is not politically stable enough for anybody to make that kind of investment.
Because Europe is part of the rest of the world, so if a proposition isn't true for Europe it obviously isn't true for "the rest of the world". Logic, you know.
In addition, Europe is the cause of a lot of these policies, and it also has the power to stop them.
And I actually know Europe well, although I think most of the points you list apply even more in Asia, Africa, and Oceania (well, they usually don't bother with drones, they just send men to kill people they don't like).
I don't mean "originates" as in "far distant ancestors", I mean European governments today are responsible for a lot of this crap and pushing for it in international agreements. And they use anti-Americanism as a smokescreen to distract from their own domestic shenanigans. And that very much has an impact on consequences, because if you don't like the consequences, you need to understand their causes and you need to find the people who can bring about change.
Apple's aluminum-and-glass extravaganza probably costs more energy and raw materials to produce than two Android phones. So, I wouldn't bet that buying Apple's overpriced designer phones and keeping them a little longer is actually better for the environment.
Given that Android phones are usually a lot cheaper than iPhones, people can upgrade by buying a new phone and still come out ahead financially.
That's how I let Apple know that I think iOS is "shit": I stopped buying from them.
This European ruling is still more limited than US fair use rights, and the entire repressive copyright regime was created by international organizations in the first place, mainly driven by Europeans.
Instead if being an example of the benefits of big government, this is an example of big government passing more laws to fix problems that it itself created.
Unless they are deliberately aiming a signal at us, we wouldn't be seeing anything. Even regular analog transmissions are impossible to see at this distance. And modern radio signals (cellular, encrypted, compressed) just look like low level random noise anyway.
If you set those minimal requirements, their owners will renovate accordingly and then charge market rates for those new units. If people couldn't afford to rent these kinds of nicer units before at market rates, how will they be able to rent them after the regulation is in place?
In fact, what these regulations really are mostly about is middle class folks trying to get what they consider riff-raff out of their neighborhoods. Don't try to pretend that this helps poor people, because it doesn't.
Stop the irrelevant bloviation and stick to the facts, OK?
I wrote:
I.e. I was clearly referring to a particular set of health and safety laws, not all health and safety laws.
You deliberately misquoted me to try to portray me as a radical right winger who rejects all health and safety laws.
You apparently are really well trained when it comes to sabotaging political discussions and making ad hominem attacks.
You're asking for a citation for a question?
I'm asking you: how does Obama actually determine that the people he is killing are "Al Quaeda operatives"? What kind of recourse exists there? What checks and balances are there.
Since you can't come up with any, sound like the answer is: "none".
No, you live in "Pollyanna Land" if you think that strategic voting is going to get you anywhere. And, in particular, if the two candidates are about equally bad (and Obama and Romney were for all practical purposes), you really lose nothing by voting for a third party andidate.
Ah, a litany of progressive policy items. Do you actually think you're fooling anyone by presenting these as if they were politically neutral? And to top it all off, you use more rudeness.
I don't think I have jumped to conclusions about you at all.
There are plenty of things to worry about; it's just your assertion that this is a US problem that is bogus.
A lot of what you are complaining about originates in Europe, and it won't get fixed until Europeans come to their senses.
The US should become less involved in foreign military adventures; but European leaders come begging for US military help whenever Americans try
TSA really is no different from security checks at European airports
Every nation treats its citizens differently from non-citizens, and as a non-European in Europe you probably have fewer rights than as a non-American in the US
Joining a Canadian ballroom dancing association now loses you citizenship?
You are right: health care is a human right, the UN says so. But that refers to basic health care costing a few hundred dollars a year, it does not refer to a full American health care plan, and it doesn't mean that you should be able to get basically unlimited coverage at other people's expense regardless of what stupid decisions you make
"Liberal" is not a more accurate term. There is nothing "liberal" about US "Liberals". Liberalism means support for individual liberties and free markets, not massive government regulation, corporate welfare, and taxation.
Whether Obama "is" a progressive is about as relevant as whether child raping priests "are" Catholic. The question is: who elected the guy and how keeps supporting him, and that clearly is progressives. And progressives also contribute to keeping this system in place by casting everything into an us-vs-them framework, in which the Democrats may be imperfect, but they are still always better than the Republicans; you just did it again
No, in fact it is not clear that "Republicans would be more than happy to have this sort of policy in place." There are Republicans who oppose this, just like there are Democrats who do. And the way to make change happen is to support candidates based on their issues and positions, not their party affiliation. But as long as US politics continues to be dominated by your kind of knee-jerk sports-team mentality, bad politicians like Bush and Obama will get elected.
I voted for Obama the first term because he promised to put an end to the abuses of presidential power by the Bush administration, to stop corporate welfare, and to stop the intrusion of the US government into the private lives of US citizens. As someone who voted for him, I'm entitled to say: Obama has failed miserably.
Oh, so true. And as soon as progressives Democrats start showing some civility and tolerance towards other political views, instead of caricaturing everybody who disagrees with them as a "one percenter" or "neocon puppet", and as soon as progressives and Democrats start thinking about issues instead of getting "their man" elected, perhaps we can actually make some political progress again. The drivel you have been writing doesn't give me much hope.
And how do you know they are high ranking al Quaeda operatives? Because Obama says so?
The proper branch to make that decision is the judicial branch. I'd feel a bit more comfortable with this if the US conducted a public trial and these people were found guilty in a court of law. The accused might have an opportunity to defend themselves via remote, and a judge makes the ultimate decision.
But the executive branch being judge, jury and executioner is unconstitutional and dangerous.
And explain to me: how does regulation fix that? How do those poor immigrants find apartments at what they are able to pay once you regulate?
Just because some of those choices are good doesn't mean that more are better, or that everything purporting to be a "health and safety regulation" actually is.
More dumb strawman arguments. Is that kind of blind idiocy all that progressives are capable of?
Besides, there are, in fact, other ways for government to protect the environment besides regulation. But, of course, you wouldn't understand that.
Did I say anywhere "all regulations are a liberal conspiracy"? No.
You're a bloody liar.