and whatever you are fighting for would equally be eventually corrupted and serve only an entrenched aristocracy, and equally require revolution in order to right injustices. this is the inevitable cycle of history. every revolution is fought by the commoners in the name of righting injustice by the ruling class, and every revolution eventually decays into nothing more than a new ruling class. this observation applies equally to whatever the hell you think you are fighting for
that's why its called history, moron, you should study it someday, you would learn this. it has valuable things to teach you about your own beliefs
instead, you naively and ignorantly believe that you are the only person who has ever thought to fight for something that could never be corrupted. you really believe you are immune to the lessons of history? then you more than anyone else are doomed to repeat history
as you well understand, communism in china and russia was fought for by peasants against the rich, in exactly the same ecstatic belief that corruption by the rich aristocracy was now finally being defeated forever. what happened? they merely stayed poor, and merely served a new aristocracy. i mean it is a cosmic joke that the most ultracapitalist country on the planet right now is ruled by the chinese communist party, an ideology supposedly diametrically opposed to capitalism. what a farce!
you really should study history, you're quite green. for your sake, i hope you are 13 years old. ideologically, you are only 13 years old, if not actually chronologically 13 years old
nationalist uprisings throughout history are largely middle class in nature, and almost automatically are enemies of the contemporary aristocratic elite of the time
all original nationalistic movements HAD to make enemies of the rich of their time. the rich were entrenched in the political structures of the time, and therefore the rich were made rich by political arrangements that depended upon the suppression of nationalistic movements in order to continue to exist
i am not saying that nationalism is a good force. i dislike it like you
i am not saying that the rich are a good force. i dislike the rich like you
however, unlike you, i understand the concepts better. therefore, i am better at being able to actually fight and defeat nationalism and the entrenched upper class. would you like to defeat nationalism? would you like to defeat the upper class? then please, fucking educate yourself and stop spouting ignorance
nationalism is in fact a corrosive force in the world. i share your hatred of it. i share your hatred of the rich too. but at least i understand what nationalism is and what the rich aristocracy is a hell of a lot better than you do. the notion that it is invented by the rich is retarded
nationalism is really just a form of tribalism, extended over a broader area because of commonalities of ethnic allegiance and shared language. it requires a modern media to drive it, and this explains why and how modern european nationalism arose after the invention of the printing press
but it's all self-emerging, it requires no force to drive it. there is no funding needed to create nationalism, it is just something that appears amongst passionate nationalists, most often the poor middle class, in fact: study the history of any nations nationalistic heroes
in fact, much of the agenda and interests of the rich and the aristocratic classes throughout history is diametrically opposed to nationalistic forces, and the rich have frequently succumbed to populist nationalist uprisings throughout history. the aristocracy was and is often described by nationalist narratives as sell-outs ready to betray their own people
not that plenty of rich in many countries are often enthusiastically nationalistic, but this not a cause-effect relationship, in either direction. just look at the history of communist china or communist russia if you want to see a better example of the rich being skewered in the name of populist nationalist uprisings, nevermind the fact that nationalist instincts in those countries are still continuously manipulated propagandisitically according to governmental instruments- not the rich
1. nationalism a populist force. not an artificial force propped up by financial influence
2. the rich are served by poorer workers in other countries. there is in fact a free market in labor, since there are rules on paper, but nothing really stops corporations from shopping for the locations of factories in the countries with the cheapest workers available
3. if workers could move wherever they want, they would all move to the places with the highest salaries. this would dramatically increase the pool of workers in a given field in those locations, thereby bringing down the salaries in that field in that location. thereby nullifying the value of moving in the first place
if you take a fine, upstanding citizen, and skewer them mercilessly in the media, they themselves might feel bad, and they themselves might feel like hiding in a cave, and they themselves might not like capitalizing on their new notoriety. but you have just given them a gift regardless of whether they use it or not. they have just been given carte blanche to capitalize on their notoriety
go ahead, pick someone, anyone, who has received horrible negative attention in the media. all of it can result in book deals and television programs and cash. infamy has the same financial effect as fame. it has an inverse MORAL effect, but i'm not talking about how you might be morally impoverished. i'm limiting my words to your financial benefit from exposure, of whatever type of exposure. if you have gained the public's attention, lots of people know you and remember you. this means you can turn heads again in the future. this attention is a form of power, however it is gained
it is such a morally impervious effect that they had to pass laws to prevent serial killers from financially benefitting from their vile crimes:
ray ozzie tells the world that we should take wave seriously
if ray ozzie had ignored wave, then he would have implicitly communicated it would be safe for everyone else to ignore wave
by throwing a hissy fit over wave, ray ozzie is telling all of us that wave has real potential
google should cut ray ozzie a check for the free PR and advertising
when will people learn that there is no such thing as bad press? all exposure, positive or negative, is good exposure. that's why attempts at censorship often backfire (see: streisand effect)
is this a valid rationale in your mind for denying them their reproductive rights? of course not
likewise, simply because a lot of people are idiots about what their genetic makeup means, this is no rationale for denying them that information. its already there's, it's already their provenance. they every right to know what it is, regardless of what they do with it
the logical fallacy in your thinking is that denying them access to the information will prevent them from doing something ignorant. no, if you deny them the information, they will do something ignorant anyways. because they are ignorant. they will do something ignorant regardless. therefore, giving people free access to their own genetic information is not the deciding factor in the harm someone might or might not do with information that is their rightful inheritance, literally
people must educate themselves as to what their genetic information means. if they are not willing to do this, they are not willing act responsibly in their lives regardless of what you tell them or do not tell them, and they are already bound to screw themselves up some ways no matter what you tell them or withhold from them. why do you think other people's ignorance is your responsibility?
without IBM testing for the genetic trait of psychopathy, IBM as a future business is doomed, since all of its competitors will do better in business. this is due to the fact that they will be screening for psychopathy and will only be hiring executives who show a strong affinity for the set genetic markers for psychopathy
i knew a chick in high school who tried to commit suicide a couple of times. each time there was an outpouring of attention and concern, that would fade, then she would try to kill herself again. eventually, she succeeded
there is a such a thing as munchausen syndrome, where people seek sympathy by faking a medical condition
i think the constellation of reasons people commit suicide is a lot broader than munchausen syndrome, but i think there are a lot of similiarities in a large range of reasons that involve this sort of sick seeking of attention, this idea that putting yourself in jeopardy is the way you obtain love from the people around you. suicide is essentially an ultimate form of narcissism, however faulty the circuits that lead to that consuming narcissism, that's what suicide essentially is. some are organic failings, some are personality failings
the instinct of the poster you are responding too, however insensitively arrived at, could actually more helpful than your approach. a lot of personality and psychological problems that we all have, right up to and including outright mental illness, are made worse by sympathy
"tough love", outright hostility and anger, might be a more appropriate external stimulus for a lot of mental conditions, including a lot of suicidal behavior. not all of it of course. and this "tough love" should be motivated by higher nobility than just pure outright disdain, but it is often said that those who mean the best often do the worst damage, and in the case of suicidal people and sympathy, you may actually be looking at the ultimate culmination of that little bit of pop wisdom. that sympathy for them at the wrong set of psychological conditions created their suicidal tendencies in the first place
is not appreciated by those who think they are immortal
ie, teenaged idiots
that the world is full of teenaged idiots (most of whom are not chronologically actual teenagers) should not surprise you or disappoint you
just a simple ugliness of life you need to learn to accept, like people who throw their garbage on the ground or talk loudly at movies, its another example of the tragedy of the commons
sure you could declare a high holy moral crusade against boorish insensitivity, but its like trying to stop the sun from rising and setting: a lot of people are ignorant assholes, status permanent, and even those you might actually be able to educate are quickly replaced by more morons
it's all electronic control, rather than hydraulic/ pneumatic controls. meaning its more simple, but it's also more rigid: if your computer goes, so goes your aircraft. yeah, they use triple redundant systems, but how many electric surges do you need to take out 3 computer systems in an aluminum tube?
I always had concerns about Airbus design of their aircraft. They use fly by wire technology. They have 3 redundant computer systems to control the airplane including flight controls. It is nice on paper and very efficient, except a systemic failure like getting hit by lightning fries all the computers.
Boeing still uses a combination of mechanical and hydraulics. Take a little more weight and not as efficient... but much more reliable. It goes back to the tradition from WWII with the B-17 Bombers. It would take something like 25 direct hits on the average of 20 mm cannon from German fighters to bring one down. The Germans had to go to the MK-108 30 mm cannon and then it would need 4 direct hits on the average.
Also there is too much use of composites in the Airbus planes... I am not sure they can stand abnormal stresses as well as metal alloys traditionally used.
Too many Airbus aircraft have fallen and the EU has been protective. The FAA needs to investigate these issues instead of just giving them a pass. -- Buba2000, USA
i'm certain a few become millionaires or well respected academics. but i wonder how many wind up heroin addicts or working in food service. for every wolfram or yo yo ma or tiger woods there are a whole host of burn outs
you always hear about these stellar rises, then... nothing
you burden these kids with humongous egos and humongous expectations, its really more of a handicap than a gift
Groping in crowded commuter trains has been a problem in Japan; according to a survey conducted by Tokyo Metropolitan Police and East Japan Railway Company, two-thirds of female passengers in their twenties and thirties reported that they had been groped on trains, and the majority had been victimized frequently. Authorities have been unable to control the chikan activities, as trains are too crowded to identify the perpetrators, courts have traditionally been lenient, and victims are too often ashamed to come forward.[4] The police and railway companies responded with poster campaigns to raise awareness and tougher sentences, but have been unable to reverse the trend.[5] In 2004, the Tokyo police reported a threefold increase in reported cases of groping on public transportation over eight years.[6]
meanwhile, in new york city, i have heard of two gropings in the last 2 years in new york city's subways. both men were promptly photographed by cell phones by the women involved, reported to the police AND had their pictures spread all over the newspapers, and charged heavily when inevitably caught
male sexual transgression is high in japan, its just that a lot of women don't say anything about it out of shame, or perhaps acceptance (shudder). i know what you are trying to say about the cathartic nature of sexual media, but japan is a poor example for you to consider, it has a sexist culture
#1. every crime you hold the two party system responsible for also happens in multiparty states. in other words, the two party system does not cause the corruption you believe it does
#2. we DO have multiparty systems in the usa. clinton beat bush #1 in 1992 because ross perot split the right. nader cost al gore the election in 2000 by ekeing away from the left. go to google and type in "whig". read up on its history. why didn't a new party come in and stand next to the whig party rather than come in and REPLACE the whig party? because the us system is MATHEMATICALLY rigged to favor a two party equilibrium. three or more parties in the usa is unstable: two parties are just bound to dominate, and weaken the third/ fourth/ etc. its mathematics of the rules playing out, that's all, not some sort of plot
#3. the left/ right dichotomy is a basic political axis that exists even in multiparty states. multiparty states often devolve into dominant party states. meaning, one party holds the majority of power for decades. sound better?
#4. a benefit of a two party system you don't recognize is it forces both parties to compete for the moderate, forcing the agendas of both parties to moderate rather than radicalize (yes, i know some of you think both parties are far right, or both parties are far left: this is more a reflection of your own radical politics than political reality, and few people share your opinion with you, since you believe both parties are right, both parties are left, you are fringe, and therefore of a very minor and mostly irrelevant cranky point of view)
#5. a negative of multiparty systems is they rule by coalition. what this means is the ultraleft greens with throw out all of what they stand for ideologically to get in bed with a far right racist party in order to hold onto the craven need for power. go ahead, ask any german. meaning: in multiparty systems, people can be even more shallow ideologically then they might seem to you in a two party system
i'm not saying the two party system is wonderful and perfect. it has plenty of problems. i understand and agree with the founding father's distrust of them. but i understand they aren't some plot, they aren't colluding, they aren't the same, unlike some fools you hear. they are just inevitable emergent phenomena of politics playing out. restart the usa as some sort of experiment 1 times, 10 times, 100 times... every single time, you'll wind up with an equilibirum of two parties. not one party, not three parties, not no parties, but two parties
i'm just sick of people who think it is at the root of all of our political problems. if we changed all of the political rules in the usa so there were more than two parties, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE ABOUT WHAT YOU HATE ABOUT POLITICS
please take a moment educate yourself the slightest about the subject matter, THEN open your mouth. here, here's a primer, follow the links, edumacate yourself PLEASE:
is always about omitting the context of a conclusion. yes, a prius is less green than a hummer, in certain contexts. yes, a train is less green than a train, in certain contexts. in a limited set of variables, you can conclude an aircraft carrier is greener than a pack mule
for example: fed 0.25 pounds of nuclear fuel, the aircraft carrier was founds to go around the planet a couple of times, while the pack mule was found dead. surely, the aircraft carrier is greener here
for example: by ability to transport aircraft to military hotspots, the aircraft carrier was found to go exactly where needed for a reasonable amount of fuel, while the pack mule merely sat there with a crushed spine
etc., etc.
along any narrow axis of any comparison, you can really say anything you want, and in fact good propaganda does this all the time. that's why it's called "half truths". they are telling you the truth, they only are omitting half of what you need to properly evaluate the value of the statement they are making
beware any "facts" you encounter on any controversial topic: gun control, the environment, islam and terrorism, etc.: lots of "facts" are not really as convincing as they appear at face value, phrased in such a way to tug at your preconceptions and subtle prejudices, instead of actually enlightening you as to any real truth
everyone needs to go into this world with a very skeptical mind, about anything you hear. unfortunately, it is actually those who are most emotionally invested in any number of controversial topics who lose that discipline, and become nothing more than blind kneejerk partisan hacks
Slashdot Mirror
and whatever you are fighting for would equally be eventually corrupted and serve only an entrenched aristocracy, and equally require revolution in order to right injustices. this is the inevitable cycle of history. every revolution is fought by the commoners in the name of righting injustice by the ruling class, and every revolution eventually decays into nothing more than a new ruling class. this observation applies equally to whatever the hell you think you are fighting for
that's why its called history, moron, you should study it someday, you would learn this. it has valuable things to teach you about your own beliefs
instead, you naively and ignorantly believe that you are the only person who has ever thought to fight for something that could never be corrupted. you really believe you are immune to the lessons of history? then you more than anyone else are doomed to repeat history
as you well understand, communism in china and russia was fought for by peasants against the rich, in exactly the same ecstatic belief that corruption by the rich aristocracy was now finally being defeated forever. what happened? they merely stayed poor, and merely served a new aristocracy. i mean it is a cosmic joke that the most ultracapitalist country on the planet right now is ruled by the chinese communist party, an ideology supposedly diametrically opposed to capitalism. what a farce!
you really should study history, you're quite green. for your sake, i hope you are 13 years old. ideologically, you are only 13 years old, if not actually chronologically 13 years old
study history
nationalist uprisings throughout history are largely middle class in nature, and almost automatically are enemies of the contemporary aristocratic elite of the time
here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria
all original nationalistic movements HAD to make enemies of the rich of their time. the rich were entrenched in the political structures of the time, and therefore the rich were made rich by political arrangements that depended upon the suppression of nationalistic movements in order to continue to exist
i am not saying that nationalism is a good force. i dislike it like you
i am not saying that the rich are a good force. i dislike the rich like you
however, unlike you, i understand the concepts better. therefore, i am better at being able to actually fight and defeat nationalism and the entrenched upper class. would you like to defeat nationalism? would you like to defeat the upper class? then please, fucking educate yourself and stop spouting ignorance
here, i'll get the ball rolling for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_italy
lol!
nationalism is in fact a corrosive force in the world. i share your hatred of it. i share your hatred of the rich too. but at least i understand what nationalism is and what the rich aristocracy is a hell of a lot better than you do. the notion that it is invented by the rich is retarded
nationalism is really just a form of tribalism, extended over a broader area because of commonalities of ethnic allegiance and shared language. it requires a modern media to drive it, and this explains why and how modern european nationalism arose after the invention of the printing press
but it's all self-emerging, it requires no force to drive it. there is no funding needed to create nationalism, it is just something that appears amongst passionate nationalists, most often the poor middle class, in fact: study the history of any nations nationalistic heroes
in fact, much of the agenda and interests of the rich and the aristocratic classes throughout history is diametrically opposed to nationalistic forces, and the rich have frequently succumbed to populist nationalist uprisings throughout history. the aristocracy was and is often described by nationalist narratives as sell-outs ready to betray their own people
not that plenty of rich in many countries are often enthusiastically nationalistic, but this not a cause-effect relationship, in either direction. just look at the history of communist china or communist russia if you want to see a better example of the rich being skewered in the name of populist nationalist uprisings, nevermind the fact that nationalist instincts in those countries are still continuously manipulated propagandisitically according to governmental instruments- not the rich
1. nationalism a populist force. not an artificial force propped up by financial influence
2. the rich are served by poorer workers in other countries. there is in fact a free market in labor, since there are rules on paper, but nothing really stops corporations from shopping for the locations of factories in the countries with the cheapest workers available
3. if workers could move wherever they want, they would all move to the places with the highest salaries. this would dramatically increase the pool of workers in a given field in those locations, thereby bringing down the salaries in that field in that location. thereby nullifying the value of moving in the first place
mootium
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.html
retarded fanbases with way too much time to mindlessly endlessly vote are not unique to the Colbert Report
come to think of it, then perhaps AmericanIdolium is an even more appropriate name choice
in a large hall previously devoted to gymnastics
so i propose gymnasium, auditorium, or symposium
and i thought yeah i know they have a new album but this is ridiculous
3x the investment, 1/4 the bureaucracy, none of the political risk, none of the cost
the internet is a series of tubes, like plumbing
and the world wide web is where you get lolcat pictures
please educate yourself before you open your ignorant mouth
if you take a fine, upstanding citizen, and skewer them mercilessly in the media, they themselves might feel bad, and they themselves might feel like hiding in a cave, and they themselves might not like capitalizing on their new notoriety. but you have just given them a gift regardless of whether they use it or not. they have just been given carte blanche to capitalize on their notoriety
go ahead, pick someone, anyone, who has received horrible negative attention in the media. all of it can result in book deals and television programs and cash. infamy has the same financial effect as fame. it has an inverse MORAL effect, but i'm not talking about how you might be morally impoverished. i'm limiting my words to your financial benefit from exposure, of whatever type of exposure. if you have gained the public's attention, lots of people know you and remember you. this means you can turn heads again in the future. this attention is a form of power, however it is gained
it is such a morally impervious effect that they had to pass laws to prevent serial killers from financially benefitting from their vile crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law
ray ozzie tells the world that we should take wave seriously
if ray ozzie had ignored wave, then he would have implicitly communicated it would be safe for everyone else to ignore wave
by throwing a hissy fit over wave, ray ozzie is telling all of us that wave has real potential
google should cut ray ozzie a check for the free PR and advertising
when will people learn that there is no such thing as bad press? all exposure, positive or negative, is good exposure. that's why attempts at censorship often backfire (see: streisand effect)
not everyone uses them wisely
is this a valid rationale in your mind for denying them their reproductive rights? of course not
likewise, simply because a lot of people are idiots about what their genetic makeup means, this is no rationale for denying them that information. its already there's, it's already their provenance. they every right to know what it is, regardless of what they do with it
the logical fallacy in your thinking is that denying them access to the information will prevent them from doing something ignorant. no, if you deny them the information, they will do something ignorant anyways. because they are ignorant. they will do something ignorant regardless. therefore, giving people free access to their own genetic information is not the deciding factor in the harm someone might or might not do with information that is their rightful inheritance, literally
people must educate themselves as to what their genetic information means. if they are not willing to do this, they are not willing act responsibly in their lives regardless of what you tell them or do not tell them, and they are already bound to screw themselves up some ways no matter what you tell them or withhold from them. why do you think other people's ignorance is your responsibility?
are you fucking calling programmers asocial psychopaths?
are you fucking sure you want to call programmers asocial psychopaths?
I SAID ARE YOU FUCKING SURE THIS IS THE WAY YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS?
are you fucking listening to me?
ARE YOU FUCKING LISTENING TO ME?
without IBM testing for the genetic trait of psychopathy, IBM as a future business is doomed, since all of its competitors will do better in business. this is due to the fact that they will be screening for psychopathy and will only be hiring executives who show a strong affinity for the set genetic markers for psychopathy
i knew a chick in high school who tried to commit suicide a couple of times. each time there was an outpouring of attention and concern, that would fade, then she would try to kill herself again. eventually, she succeeded
there is a such a thing as munchausen syndrome, where people seek sympathy by faking a medical condition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome
i think the constellation of reasons people commit suicide is a lot broader than munchausen syndrome, but i think there are a lot of similiarities in a large range of reasons that involve this sort of sick seeking of attention, this idea that putting yourself in jeopardy is the way you obtain love from the people around you. suicide is essentially an ultimate form of narcissism, however faulty the circuits that lead to that consuming narcissism, that's what suicide essentially is. some are organic failings, some are personality failings
the instinct of the poster you are responding too, however insensitively arrived at, could actually more helpful than your approach. a lot of personality and psychological problems that we all have, right up to and including outright mental illness, are made worse by sympathy
"tough love", outright hostility and anger, might be a more appropriate external stimulus for a lot of mental conditions, including a lot of suicidal behavior. not all of it of course. and this "tough love" should be motivated by higher nobility than just pure outright disdain, but it is often said that those who mean the best often do the worst damage, and in the case of suicidal people and sympathy, you may actually be looking at the ultimate culmination of that little bit of pop wisdom. that sympathy for them at the wrong set of psychological conditions created their suicidal tendencies in the first place
is not appreciated by those who think they are immortal
ie, teenaged idiots
that the world is full of teenaged idiots (most of whom are not chronologically actual teenagers) should not surprise you or disappoint you
just a simple ugliness of life you need to learn to accept, like people who throw their garbage on the ground or talk loudly at movies, its another example of the tragedy of the commons
sure you could declare a high holy moral crusade against boorish insensitivity, but its like trying to stop the sun from rising and setting: a lot of people are ignorant assholes, status permanent, and even those you might actually be able to educate are quickly replaced by more morons
it's all electronic control, rather than hydraulic/ pneumatic controls. meaning its more simple, but it's also more rigid: if your computer goes, so goes your aircraft. yeah, they use triple redundant systems, but how many electric surges do you need to take out 3 computer systems in an aluminum tube?
learned from this interesting comment:
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/06/02/world/europe/02plane.html?s=3
to all these child prodigies
i'm certain a few become millionaires or well respected academics. but i wonder how many wind up heroin addicts or working in food service. for every wolfram or yo yo ma or tiger woods there are a whole host of burn outs
you always hear about these stellar rises, then... nothing
you burden these kids with humongous egos and humongous expectations, its really more of a handicap than a gift
as long as they learn something
on trains that they've taken to running female only trains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-only_passenger_car
#1. every crime you hold the two party system responsible for also happens in multiparty states. in other words, the two party system does not cause the corruption you believe it does
#2. we DO have multiparty systems in the usa. clinton beat bush #1 in 1992 because ross perot split the right. nader cost al gore the election in 2000 by ekeing away from the left. go to google and type in "whig". read up on its history. why didn't a new party come in and stand next to the whig party rather than come in and REPLACE the whig party? because the us system is MATHEMATICALLY rigged to favor a two party equilibrium. three or more parties in the usa is unstable: two parties are just bound to dominate, and weaken the third/ fourth/ etc. its mathematics of the rules playing out, that's all, not some sort of plot
#3. the left/ right dichotomy is a basic political axis that exists even in multiparty states. multiparty states often devolve into dominant party states. meaning, one party holds the majority of power for decades. sound better?
#4. a benefit of a two party system you don't recognize is it forces both parties to compete for the moderate, forcing the agendas of both parties to moderate rather than radicalize (yes, i know some of you think both parties are far right, or both parties are far left: this is more a reflection of your own radical politics than political reality, and few people share your opinion with you, since you believe both parties are right, both parties are left, you are fringe, and therefore of a very minor and mostly irrelevant cranky point of view)
#5. a negative of multiparty systems is they rule by coalition. what this means is the ultraleft greens with throw out all of what they stand for ideologically to get in bed with a far right racist party in order to hold onto the craven need for power. go ahead, ask any german. meaning: in multiparty systems, people can be even more shallow ideologically then they might seem to you in a two party system
i'm not saying the two party system is wonderful and perfect. it has plenty of problems. i understand and agree with the founding father's distrust of them. but i understand they aren't some plot, they aren't colluding, they aren't the same, unlike some fools you hear. they are just inevitable emergent phenomena of politics playing out. restart the usa as some sort of experiment 1 times, 10 times, 100 times... every single time, you'll wind up with an equilibirum of two parties. not one party, not three parties, not no parties, but two parties
i'm just sick of people who think it is at the root of all of our political problems. if we changed all of the political rules in the usa so there were more than two parties, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE ABOUT WHAT YOU HATE ABOUT POLITICS
please take a moment educate yourself the slightest about the subject matter, THEN open your mouth. here, here's a primer, follow the links, edumacate yourself PLEASE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
is always about omitting the context of a conclusion. yes, a prius is less green than a hummer, in certain contexts. yes, a train is less green than a train, in certain contexts. in a limited set of variables, you can conclude an aircraft carrier is greener than a pack mule
for example: fed 0.25 pounds of nuclear fuel, the aircraft carrier was founds to go around the planet a couple of times, while the pack mule was found dead. surely, the aircraft carrier is greener here
for example: by ability to transport aircraft to military hotspots, the aircraft carrier was found to go exactly where needed for a reasonable amount of fuel, while the pack mule merely sat there with a crushed spine
etc., etc.
along any narrow axis of any comparison, you can really say anything you want, and in fact good propaganda does this all the time. that's why it's called "half truths". they are telling you the truth, they only are omitting half of what you need to properly evaluate the value of the statement they are making
beware any "facts" you encounter on any controversial topic: gun control, the environment, islam and terrorism, etc.: lots of "facts" are not really as convincing as they appear at face value, phrased in such a way to tug at your preconceptions and subtle prejudices, instead of actually enlightening you as to any real truth
everyone needs to go into this world with a very skeptical mind, about anything you hear. unfortunately, it is actually those who are most emotionally invested in any number of controversial topics who lose that discipline, and become nothing more than blind kneejerk partisan hacks
its not like its a highly overpopulated, poor country, right?
better to keep indians ignorant of sex, in case they were to learn it might not be a good idea to bring yet another mouth to feed into the world
as if "simple" voting (really? electronic voting is "simple"?) is the only thing keeping the two party system in place
you're an idiot or a troll, and not a very good one at that
there is plenty of legislation written that is downright garbage