The above just demonstrates that you are completely clueless about what most people of the left want.
Who cares what they want? The important thing is the result of their policy choices. The two are seldom precisely the same.
Next time, why don't you try asking people what they thing about those issues instead of putting words in peoples mouths and jump to unjustified conclusions? Or would that make you seem too reasonable?
Because the answers are predictable. They want everything to be good for everyone all the time. Lots of people want that. Wanting it doesn't make it happen.
But here's the thing: trying to make it happen by meddling in other people's lives doesn't make it happen either. Most of the time, it makes things worse. If you leave people alone and let them make their own choices, you get a better (but still imperfect) result.
How about "Don't try to determine how other people should live". Then if they don't live the way I want... oh well. They're free to choose for themselves.
He has the right to care about his country's foreign policies. He has the right to know what's going on, not to "get over it."
I suggested he get over his obsession with the war. Obsession tends to be a bad thing, and, as I said, it doesn't seem to be making him happy. Should he continue his paranoid, obsessive ranting on the war? Is there a practical benefit to him or anyone else?
Besides, it was off-topic.
Your condenscending attitude and your sneer are not going to make you any friends here.
Just trying to provoke some actual thought. I'd like people to have a mature, thoughtful, non-emotional understanding of the real world.
1. People pay for it due to pretention and irrational fear.
2. Pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, herbicides, hormone injections, genetic modification, and all the other non-organic techniques work. (So you create more food with the same amount of input. Costs are lower, prices can be lower, and food can be a lot more plentiful.)
Whoops I forgot to mention the main point: Brasilia is a disaster because Le Corbusier was a moron of the highest order. It is not sufficient to simply have a plan, one must also have a GOOD plan.
This is a common conceit.
It didn't work because they were stupid. Surely it'll work this time -- we're not stupid, are we? No. Therefore it will work. And once someone doesn't do what we planned for them to do, well, they'll have to be stopped and forced to do it The Right Way(tm). So it works. Because we're not stupid. No. Not us. Never us.
Re:We can all breathe a bit easier
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Perhaps the Americans should have babies like there is no tomorrow...
I just want to know whether you guys think it was better when Dinkins ran it.
I have a somewhat limited knowledge of NYC. But it's known as a liberal place. It was more liberal when Dinkins was mayor. Is it worse now that's it's a little less liberal, or is it better?
I insist they stop trying to make my choices for me.
First, they should realize that that IS what they're doing. Then they should realize that making people's choices for them is wrong. Then they should stop.
After the last 5 years of failed, miserable, lying, incompetent Republican rule you have no right to criticize anyone else's government.
At least they're doing something.
Are you for anything? Or are you just against the things your friends all agree you should be against? And "doing something" doesn't cut it -- come up with something specific that has a history of working in the real world and doesn't rely on fantasy and utopian thinking to achieve a goal.
BTW: The war talk is juvenile, completely off-topic, and a sign of a sort of strange obsessiveness you share with a portion of society. You'd be better off getting over it. I don't think your obsession with the war is making you happy.
Most of us on the left wing are as frightened as you are of such a thing.
Um, then why do you keep trying to tell people they can't
- drive the car, - eat the food, - smoke the cigarettes, - buy the healthcare, - hire the people, - work for the wage, - open the store, - live with the neighbors, - run the campaign ads, - build the factory, - go to the schools, - support the charities, - raise their children the way or - spend their paychecks the way
The USA is well on it's way to this goal. It ain't the 50's anymore. The rivers no longer start on fire.
If we were all wondering if we'd be able to feed ourselves through the winter, no one would give a damn if the river water started on fire. A silent spring is the same as any other spring when you haven't eaten in 2 days.
Think about it for a minute and tell me you'd really care if an energy source polluted or not if it was the only thing you could afford to keep your family from freezing some cold January night.
Understanding this stuff is part of being a grown-up. Why not turn that corner right now?
It's a leftist's dream come true
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Wow, new cities where a HUGE government plans everything out in advance. They decide where you work, what you do for a living, how you get to work, where you can live, what products you can buy, where you'll buy them, and where you'll dispose of the wrapper. They thought of everything!
And it's all engineered from the beginning by people who know more about The Right Way(tm) to live than us commoners could ever hope to know. The inhabitants of this marvelous new city will sure be happy to be relieved of the burden of making their own choices, not to mention the constant disappointment of finding out they made the "unenlightened" choice again.
When can we move in? And what flavor of Kool-aid will there be when we want to leave?
Re:To the rag that is the Wash. Times: Let them sc
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
The Washington Times != The Washington Post. One is a bastion of DC journalism. The other is only slightly better than a tabloid.
Look, The Washington Post is so biased that they covered the historic democratic adoption of the Iraq constitution -- the most significant Middle East event since the Carter Administration -- on page A13, but you're still being a little too hard on them.
Tivo just decides what to record. It doesn't go out and find new shows and download them. It isn't part of the network decision-making process on what to put on the air.
Since targetted TV ads will be a lot more valuable on a per-viewer basis than current TV ads, advertisers will pay a lot more for them. That will support a show with fewer viewers, because each viewer is more valuable to advertisers. That will lead to a market with more shows, each show having a smaller (but happier, more valuable) audience. That means there will be more shows that appeal to me. It's a huge win-win for everyone.
If they can give me targetted ads, they can give me targetted TV shows. More shows I like, available when I want to see them. All to get me to watch ads that are for stuff I might actually want to buy. Sounds good.
That's the point I was trying to get across. The NY Times is unethical. Partly it's because they hate Bush, partly because they don't really want to be ethical.
Also, I guess I wanted to further point out that the "Bush threatens the Onion" story is selectively reported to the point of it being unuseful. The info left out of the story misinforms readers as much or more than the info included in the story informs readers.
Now the NY Times is more interested in harming the Bush administration than it is in reporting the news.
It's nigh impossible to do the later without doing the former.
Cute comment. Answer for me:
Why was it neccessary for the NY Times to leave out the legal reason the White House sent the letter to The Onion? Was the story more accurate and informative without that info, or was it just more of a shot at the Bush administration? Is it ethical for the NY Times to mislead their readers on purpose by omitting relevant info? (Or are NY Times reporters just too stupid to do a Google search on the legalities of using the Presidential Seal?)
Congratulations, you've just done a better job of reporting than the NY Times.
Once, in the distant past, that was a big accomplishment. Now the NY Times is more interested in harming the Bush administration than it is in reporting the news.
You did a better job than the first 80 or so Slashdot commentors too. That's a bigger accomplishment. Kudos.
Slashdot Mirror
The above just demonstrates that you are completely clueless about what most people of the left want.
Who cares what they want? The important thing is the result of their policy choices. The two are seldom precisely the same.
Next time, why don't you try asking people what they thing about those issues instead of putting words in peoples mouths and jump to unjustified conclusions? Or would that make you seem too reasonable?
Because the answers are predictable. They want everything to be good for everyone all the time. Lots of people want that. Wanting it doesn't make it happen.
But here's the thing: trying to make it happen by meddling in other people's lives doesn't make it happen either. Most of the time, it makes things worse. If you leave people alone and let them make their own choices, you get a better (but still imperfect) result.
How about "Don't try to determine how other people should live". Then if they don't live the way I want... oh well. They're free to choose for themselves.
He has the right to care about his country's foreign policies. He has the right to know what's going on, not to "get over it."
I suggested he get over his obsession with the war. Obsession tends to be a bad thing, and, as I said, it doesn't seem to be making him happy. Should he continue his paranoid, obsessive ranting on the war? Is there a practical benefit to him or anyone else?
Besides, it was off-topic.
Your condenscending attitude and your sneer are not going to make you any friends here.
Just trying to provoke some actual thought. I'd like people to have a mature, thoughtful, non-emotional understanding of the real world.
So nothing specific then. Thanks for trying anyway.
Organic food is more expensive because:
1. People pay for it due to pretention and irrational fear.
2. Pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, herbicides, hormone injections, genetic modification, and all the other non-organic techniques work. (So you create more food with the same amount of input. Costs are lower, prices can be lower, and food can be a lot more plentiful.)
Whoops I forgot to mention the main point: Brasilia is a disaster because Le Corbusier was a moron of the highest order. It is not sufficient to simply have a plan, one must also have a GOOD plan.
This is a common conceit.
It didn't work because they were stupid. Surely it'll work this time -- we're not stupid, are we? No. Therefore it will work. And once someone doesn't do what we planned for them to do, well, they'll have to be stopped and forced to do it The Right Way(tm). So it works. Because we're not stupid. No. Not us. Never us.
Perhaps the Americans should have babies like there is no tomorrow...
Can I donate to your campaign?
Good quiz.
But wasn't Dinkins more liberal than Giuliani? I don't understand. How could the city have gotten better with a less-liberal mayor?
I don't know much about NYC (or Houston), but I don't think either of them could properly be called a paradise.
I do know that choosing for yourself is better than having someone choose for you though. And that's what my posts in this topic are about.
I just want to know whether you guys think it was better when Dinkins ran it.
I have a somewhat limited knowledge of NYC. But it's known as a liberal place. It was more liberal when Dinkins was mayor. Is it worse now that's it's a little less liberal, or is it better?
I insist they stop trying to make my choices for me.
First, they should realize that that IS what they're doing.
Then they should realize that making people's choices for them is wrong.
Then they should stop.
After the last 5 years of failed, miserable, lying, incompetent Republican rule you have no right to criticize anyone else's government.
At least they're doing something.
Are you for anything? Or are you just against the things your friends all agree you should be against? And "doing something" doesn't cut it -- come up with something specific that has a history of working in the real world and doesn't rely on fantasy and utopian thinking to achieve a goal.
BTW: The war talk is juvenile, completely off-topic, and a sign of a sort of strange obsessiveness you share with a portion of society. You'd be better off getting over it. I don't think your obsession with the war is making you happy.
Do you, or do you not, agree that NYC was better when Dinkins was mayor?
Yeah, NYC sure is a paradise. I suppose you'll tell me it was better when Dinkins was mayor though.
Most of us on the left wing are as frightened as you are of such a thing.
Um, then why do you keep trying to tell people they can't
- drive the car,
- eat the food,
- smoke the cigarettes,
- buy the healthcare,
- hire the people,
- work for the wage,
- open the store,
- live with the neighbors,
- run the campaign ads,
- build the factory,
- go to the schools,
- support the charities,
- raise their children the way or
- spend their paychecks the way
they want?
The USA is well on it's way to this goal. It ain't the 50's anymore. The rivers no longer start on fire.
If we were all wondering if we'd be able to feed ourselves through the winter, no one would give a damn if the river water started on fire. A silent spring is the same as any other spring when you haven't eaten in 2 days.
Think about it for a minute and tell me you'd really care if an energy source polluted or not if it was the only thing you could afford to keep your family from freezing some cold January night.
Understanding this stuff is part of being a grown-up. Why not turn that corner right now?
Wow, new cities where a HUGE government plans everything out in advance. They decide where you work, what you do for a living, how you get to work, where you can live, what products you can buy, where you'll buy them, and where you'll dispose of the wrapper. They thought of everything!
And it's all engineered from the beginning by people who know more about The Right Way(tm) to live than us commoners could ever hope to know. The inhabitants of this marvelous new city will sure be happy to be relieved of the burden of making their own choices, not to mention the constant disappointment of finding out they made the "unenlightened" choice again.
When can we move in? And what flavor of Kool-aid will there be when we want to leave?
The Washington Times != The Washington Post. One is a bastion of DC journalism. The other is only slightly better than a tabloid.
Look, The Washington Post is so biased that they covered the historic democratic adoption of the Iraq constitution -- the most significant Middle East event since the Carter Administration -- on page A13, but you're still being a little too hard on them.
Tivo just decides what to record. It doesn't go out and find new shows and download them. It isn't part of the network decision-making process on what to put on the air.
Since targetted TV ads will be a lot more valuable on a per-viewer basis than current TV ads, advertisers will pay a lot more for them. That will support a show with fewer viewers, because each viewer is more valuable to advertisers. That will lead to a market with more shows, each show having a smaller (but happier, more valuable) audience. That means there will be more shows that appeal to me. It's a huge win-win for everyone.
If they can give me targetted ads, they can give me targetted TV shows. More shows I like, available when I want to see them. All to get me to watch ads that are for stuff I might actually want to buy. Sounds good.
The same reason radio stations stopped streaming commercials:
They have to pay actors in commercials a lot extra in order to show the commercials on an additional medium.
The low probability of your ever producing offspring?
Yes, it's unethical.
Thank you.
That's the point I was trying to get across. The NY Times is unethical. Partly it's because they hate Bush, partly because they don't really want to be ethical.
Also, I guess I wanted to further point out that the "Bush threatens the Onion" story is selectively reported to the point of it being unuseful. The info left out of the story misinforms readers as much or more than the info included in the story informs readers.
Now the NY Times is more interested in harming the Bush administration than it is in reporting the news.
It's nigh impossible to do the later without doing the former.
Cute comment. Answer for me:
Why was it neccessary for the NY Times to leave out the legal reason the White House sent the letter to The Onion? Was the story more accurate and informative without that info, or was it just more of a shot at the Bush administration? Is it ethical for the NY Times to mislead their readers on purpose by omitting relevant info? (Or are NY Times reporters just too stupid to do a Google search on the legalities of using the Presidential Seal?)
Congratulations, you've just done a better job of reporting than the NY Times.
Once, in the distant past, that was a big accomplishment. Now the NY Times is more interested in harming the Bush administration than it is in reporting the news.
You did a better job than the first 80 or so Slashdot commentors too. That's a bigger accomplishment. Kudos.