even when the intent of regulations is to protect citizens rather than fuck corporations
The problem here is that many regulations purport to be in the interest of protecting citizens, but in actual practice they're used to eliminate competition. For example, in order to be a doctor or lawyer one must abide by 'regulations' set forth by a specific organization, condoned by the government - all for our benefit, of course. But a doctor or lawyer who publicly criticizes others of his profession, or the organizations which regulate his profession, or who suggests that an approach condemned by his organization might actually be of value, can be thrown out of that organization and stripped of his right to practice law or medicine. Furthermore, in order to become a doctor or lawyer you have to both have the resources and be willing to abide by the belief systems of those organizations; anyone who cannot do both is barred from ever practicing law or medicine, and the government will arrest and jail you if you try.
Many other regulations are said to keep business from screwing the consumer, but business in turn uses these regulations to destroy any competition which can't muster the funds or favors needed to abide by these regulations and still maintain a profitable business - all with government collusion. I've seen this over and over again from the local level on up; an example being the enormous amount of regulations governing building code, including all the permits and reviews one needs (and has to pay for, either with money or favor or both) just to construct a simple, small office building. Large companies can afford the resources to get through all the paperwork (or make any paperwork-oriented obstacles 'disappear'); small companies are screwed right from the outset.
The point of regulation, it seems, isn't to protect anyone but established interests. Established interests already have the money and favors they need to hurdle over these stumbling blocks; their startup competitors do not. The more regulation, the harder it is to get into the game, the more security these established interests enjoy in the maintenance of their hegemony.
Regulation is a nice idea, but it's practical purpose seems to be to destroy the very idea of free-market competition. If the government were used to instead punish those whose products irresponsibly harm others (and I do mean the individuals who knowingly produced these products, and not just the company they worked for) you'd get a much fairer form of 'regulation' than is currently in place.
As usual, most of you gits aren't even bothering to read the article, much less the book the article speaks of. Here you are, yammering on about methods of teaching, which system of schooling works 'better', and what minor tweaks are needed to the current system to 'fix things'.
Blithering idiots. The entire premise of the book is that the current system doesn't need to be fixed - in fact, it CAN'T be fixed in any meaningful sense. That compulsory education, especially in it's current form, is *in and of itself* the problem. The only way it can be 'fixed' is to dispose of it entirely and replace it with a non-compulsory educational experience, and a varied experience at that. Instead of one choice, dozens, and perhaps different ones for different goals.
All you're doing here is rehashing the same damned arguments that people have been having for the last forty years. But you aren't addressing the real problem in any way: that the system itself is so fundamentally flawed it can only be scrapped, and that compulsory education will inevitably result in this flawed system.
So, try reading the article, then at least a few chapters of the book (if your educational system has prepared you for something more than the print version of a sound bite), and THEN come back for some reasoned commmentary. Until then you aren't discussing the book, just the same old bullshit that's been bandied about for decades.
Just because you have the physical attributes of an adult doesn't mean that you have the mental ones.
According to who? Evolution keeps the characteristics that work; and in this case it seems to have worked out very, very well, given that their are more than six billion of us on the planet. The idea that teenagers are somehow mentally incompetent is a bogus one; if it were true then the species would have either adapted for earlier maturation or died out, especially in light of the fact that for more than 99% of human history the average life expectancy was somewhere between 30 and 35 years of age, depending on local conditions.
You'd do well to remember that the very concept of a 'teenager' is a recent invention of the relatively rich Western world, where societies can keep entire work forces idle for an additional six to eight years without significant impact to the economy. Prior to the last century the idea of 'teenager' didn't exist over the several million years or human development and our species did splendidly.
The 'teenager' is an artificial construct, not a real one.
My high-school routinely scored 150-200 points higher than average on the SATs.
The flaw in your assumption is that scoring higher on government-sponsored tests is a measure of 'success'. But as the book points out rather clearly, the measure of success isn't in actual education but in the system of indoctrination used to disperse that education (as much as it can be called 'education').
All you've done here is show that your school's methods of indoctrination were better at achieving state-sponsored goals than the public school system. I wouldn't call that a good thing, especially after reading the book.
Left unchecked, it will definitely be born just like any other baby, barring unfortunate events that are normally considered "tragedies", such as birth defects or stillbirth. Most people know this, but they want to have the option of killing that life when it becomes inconvenient, embarrassing, or otherwise less-than-ideal. They wrap this desire under the disingenuous label of "choice", and start talking about grey areas.
What bullshit. The question isn't whether it's alive, but at what point it becomes a human being. It 'life' were the determining factor, you'd never be able to cut into a steak again. But then perhaps you're one of those vegan freaks?
The point at which a 'mass of cells' becomes a human being is very much up for contention. It isn't nearly as clear-cut as you'd like to tell everyone, nor as you would wish. Welcome to reality, son.
An atheist, on the other hand, would hang onto his disbelief in God regardless of any proof.
That simply isn't true. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but if someone were to present credible evidence that this 'god' existed logic would dictate a change in view. Not to mention a party, since who wouldn't approve of a god that makes no demands and delivers free chocolate?
In any event, one can easily conclude that no gods exist based on the same reasoning that one concludes that the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that you're going to act like an idiot and insist that Santa is a bullshit fantasy when the fat old man pulls up in his sleigh with a bunch of magical flying reindeer. It isn't an atheist that would insist that the reality before him is false, but rather a moron.
You assume that religions exist to serve people. But you must see that if a religion, any religion is true, then it must dictate the goals of humanity.
But since it's impossible to prove the truth of any religion to the satisfaction of all (or even most) people, religion has no place dictating the behavior of any person who doesn't wish to abide by it.
And therefore, religion has absolutely no business interfering with government, in any form. People have insisted on the contrary in the past, and death has always followed their foolishness.
Slashdot has always been an American-oriented site. If you had read the fucking FAQ, you'd realize that. But since you haven't, here's an excerpt:
"Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S."
Don't like it? Start your own international version of Slashdot. It's certainly more productive than whining about it.
I suppose someone with your ego would indeed have a difficult time with it, especially since you believe that your 'informed' vote is actually worth more than those who have yet to choose a candidate.
How can a person be undecided? Well, it's a fairly easy thing to be when you take a good, long look at both candidates and realise they're both fucking douchebags (see sig). Mouthpieces for existing power structures, both interested only in increasing government power and destroying individual rights and freedoms. Where choosing either gets you the same result, i.e., a bunch of power-hungry assholes shitting all over the Constitution for their own gain, although the reasons they pay lip-service too are different.
I'm voting for Kerry. I think he's a sleazebag of the worst sort, a typical politician through and through, but I'm going to vote for the fucking bastard anyway. Why? Because just as it's a truism that politicians are corrupt wannabe dictators, it's also a truism that the two parties fight like gangs arguing over turf. If the Republicans control Congress and the Democrats the White House, it's my best shot at deadlocking the government over the next four years, and making it as ineffectual as possible.
So far as I'm concerned the government is pretty much a tool for power and control, far too large and far too hungry in a land that supposedly values individual freedom. The two primary political parties have all the morals of a Colombian drug cartel; less, actually, since drug cartels usually don't lie about what it is they're selling you. So my only hope, in this gods-forsaken system, is to do my very best to break it; or at least slow it down and tangle it up with infighting.
That's why I was undecided until recently. The candidates are scum and neither are worth voting for. But a vote for Kerry is just about the only way I can see to muck up the fucking gears and keep the goddamned government from getting even more powerful over the next four years.
It's easy to be undecided when the only candidates who have a real shot of winning the election are swine. The question becomes "which of these pigs will do less damage?"
You could get rid of much of this by only allowing 'free' positive moderation. Any negative moderation would also deduct a point from YOUR OWN karma.
My guess is that the people most interested in negative moderation also have the least (or no) karma. If that's the case, their ability to pursue a personal agenda in the form of modding down folks they don't happen to like would come to an abrupt end.
I think we should go back to the old Icelandic tradition of having the Speaker of the House read all the laws of the land to the other members of Congress over the course of every three years.
You're the only other person I've ever heard say this. I've often told people that if Congress were required to read every federal law prior to opening a session we might actually end up with a sane number of sensible laws.
This has happened a couple of times to me as well, most recently a couple of weeks back when I criticized the EU and socialism in general. Whenever I say anything even remotely negative about any of these topics a band of Euro-trolls blasts all of my comments into oblivion.
I think I lost about 20 karma points on a single round of commentary. It wasn't enough to remove my automatic '2' posting level, which surprised me, but I've certainly got to be close to that point by now. No matter how abrasive or insulting I've been, I've never been karma-bombed on anything else the entire time I've been on Slashdot, on both accounts (this one and my older, lost one which was five-digit, not six). This leads me to believe that the folks primarily responsible for this behavior are not American liberals, but European liberals with an especial dislike for free speech - at least the sort of free speech they disagree with.
I'm willing to bet that if European accounts were temporarily suspended from modding the karma-bombing would stop. At the very least it would be an interesting experiment to try.
The closest anyone comes is the libertarians, but they tend to be reflexively anti-government in a way that the classical liberals never were.
Given that both of the major parties seem to only be interested in increasing the power of government at the cost of individual rights at every opportunity, it's no wonder that the libertarians are reflexively anti-government. So long as the government remains in the hands of the DemoRepublicans it's difficult NOT to be anti-government while supporting the rights of the individual.
It doesn't seem like the Democrats pay much heed to our founding fathers or our Constitution, either. The difference is that the Republicans are less subtle about their attempts to piss all over the most sacred document in the land than their counterparts are.
I despise both parties, and everyone who unthinkingly supports their candidates. The loyalty of any citizen should be to the Constitution first and foremost, and to the shyster fucks who represent their parties a distant second. So far as I'm concerned, reversing these two things makes you a traitor, utterly unworthy to call yourself 'American'.
moderators knocking anything against their personal views
The moderators ALWAYS do this. Try saying anything at all negative about liberalism or socialism and see what happens. Even if the Americans are willing to give it a pass once the time zones roll around and the Europeans get wind of what you've said you'll be modded into oblivion almost immediately.
And I would gladly get my.38 and blow your fucking head off if you made the attempt.
It's comments like yours that argue best AGAINST gun control, and for that I thank god that loons like you are willing to post their proclivities for doing violence to those who disagree with them. So long as people like you exist, I'll get to keep my guns, if only to protect myself and others from the crazies.
but removing that murderous dictator from power is a bad thing?
Well then, let's not be so selective about it. There are over 100 dictators of various countries world-wide; when are we going to go kick THEIR asses? And let's not forget that some of these evil dictators are our ALLIES.
Somalia wasn't a failed campaign. The operation in Somalia succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. The problem with Somalia was that the administration lost interest; a non-problem isn't news and won't get you votes.
I had a number of friends in Somalia during the campaign. Each and every one of them said that the operation was an unqualified success and they were pissed as hell that they were pulled out of the area, especially when everyone there knew it was for political reasons and nothing else. They had made a real difference in peoples lives, and knew that the moment they left the thugs, gangs, warlords, and genocidal government would take over once more.
If anything we should've stayed in Somalia, permanently.
I'm pretty sure that a good many Americans have realized by now that Fox News is anything but unbiased journalism. That ones that won't admit to it probably agree with the Fox agenda and are happy that opposing or contrary news items which might trouble their one-world-view mindset aren't aired.
And this is complete bullshit, the sort of pandering crap put forward by people who absolutely INSIST that everyone occupy a labeled box - in your case, 'liberal', 'moderate', or 'conservative'.
There are quite a few people who are liberal on one issue, conservative on another, and moderate on a third. Despite the fact that they refuse to jump into one of the boxes provided for them, 'studies' like this force them into the box that the people doing the study think suits them best. And that we call 'tripe', because it sure as hell isn't science.
if someone says something bad about the Unions or Socialism
That's because socialism is antithetical to free speech. It absolutely relies on quashing vocal dissent and attempting to enforce groupthink upon the population as a whole. Socialism is no better at avoiding the establishment of power elites than any other form of government, nor will it ever be. Socialism is not a democratic or inclusive form of government.
The only difference between what's called 'socialism' today and the monarchies of old is that arguments over 'divine right' have been replaced with the battle cry 'for the greater good'. Ignoring the fundamental fact, of course, that there is no such thing as a 'greater good', and that you can only do good for a society by doing good for the individuals that comprise that society.
Ironically, the most socialist government in all the world - in terms of following true, economics-oriented socialism - is also a leader in civil rights. That country being Sweden, of course. It seems that the sort of 'socialism' bandied about by certain extremist European radicals is about as close to real socialism as the Soviet Union or China is to actual communism.
Slashdot Mirror
even when the intent of regulations is to protect citizens rather than fuck corporations
The problem here is that many regulations purport to be in the interest of protecting citizens, but in actual practice they're used to eliminate competition. For example, in order to be a doctor or lawyer one must abide by 'regulations' set forth by a specific organization, condoned by the government - all for our benefit, of course. But a doctor or lawyer who publicly criticizes others of his profession, or the organizations which regulate his profession, or who suggests that an approach condemned by his organization might actually be of value, can be thrown out of that organization and stripped of his right to practice law or medicine. Furthermore, in order to become a doctor or lawyer you have to both have the resources and be willing to abide by the belief systems of those organizations; anyone who cannot do both is barred from ever practicing law or medicine, and the government will arrest and jail you if you try.
Many other regulations are said to keep business from screwing the consumer, but business in turn uses these regulations to destroy any competition which can't muster the funds or favors needed to abide by these regulations and still maintain a profitable business - all with government collusion. I've seen this over and over again from the local level on up; an example being the enormous amount of regulations governing building code, including all the permits and reviews one needs (and has to pay for, either with money or favor or both) just to construct a simple, small office building. Large companies can afford the resources to get through all the paperwork (or make any paperwork-oriented obstacles 'disappear'); small companies are screwed right from the outset.
The point of regulation, it seems, isn't to protect anyone but established interests. Established interests already have the money and favors they need to hurdle over these stumbling blocks; their startup competitors do not. The more regulation, the harder it is to get into the game, the more security these established interests enjoy in the maintenance of their hegemony.
Regulation is a nice idea, but it's practical purpose seems to be to destroy the very idea of free-market competition. If the government were used to instead punish those whose products irresponsibly harm others (and I do mean the individuals who knowingly produced these products, and not just the company they worked for) you'd get a much fairer form of 'regulation' than is currently in place.
Max
As usual, most of you gits aren't even bothering to read the article, much less the book the article speaks of. Here you are, yammering on about methods of teaching, which system of schooling works 'better', and what minor tweaks are needed to the current system to 'fix things'.
Blithering idiots. The entire premise of the book is that the current system doesn't need to be fixed - in fact, it CAN'T be fixed in any meaningful sense. That compulsory education, especially in it's current form, is *in and of itself* the problem. The only way it can be 'fixed' is to dispose of it entirely and replace it with a non-compulsory educational experience, and a varied experience at that. Instead of one choice, dozens, and perhaps different ones for different goals.
All you're doing here is rehashing the same damned arguments that people have been having for the last forty years. But you aren't addressing the real problem in any way: that the system itself is so fundamentally flawed it can only be scrapped, and that compulsory education will inevitably result in this flawed system.
So, try reading the article, then at least a few chapters of the book (if your educational system has prepared you for something more than the print version of a sound bite), and THEN come back for some reasoned commmentary. Until then you aren't discussing the book, just the same old bullshit that's been bandied about for decades.
Max
Just because you have the physical attributes of an adult doesn't mean that you have the mental ones.
According to who? Evolution keeps the characteristics that work; and in this case it seems to have worked out very, very well, given that their are more than six billion of us on the planet. The idea that teenagers are somehow mentally incompetent is a bogus one; if it were true then the species would have either adapted for earlier maturation or died out, especially in light of the fact that for more than 99% of human history the average life expectancy was somewhere between 30 and 35 years of age, depending on local conditions.
You'd do well to remember that the very concept of a 'teenager' is a recent invention of the relatively rich Western world, where societies can keep entire work forces idle for an additional six to eight years without significant impact to the economy. Prior to the last century the idea of 'teenager' didn't exist over the several million years or human development and our species did splendidly.
The 'teenager' is an artificial construct, not a real one.
Max
My high-school routinely scored 150-200 points higher than average on the SATs.
The flaw in your assumption is that scoring higher on government-sponsored tests is a measure of 'success'. But as the book points out rather clearly, the measure of success isn't in actual education but in the system of indoctrination used to disperse that education (as much as it can be called 'education').
All you've done here is show that your school's methods of indoctrination were better at achieving state-sponsored goals than the public school system. I wouldn't call that a good thing, especially after reading the book.
Max
Left unchecked, it will definitely be born just like any other baby, barring unfortunate events that are normally considered "tragedies", such as birth defects or stillbirth. Most people know this, but they want to have the option of killing that life when it becomes inconvenient, embarrassing, or otherwise less-than-ideal. They wrap this desire under the disingenuous label of "choice", and start talking about grey areas.
What bullshit. The question isn't whether it's alive, but at what point it becomes a human being. It 'life' were the determining factor, you'd never be able to cut into a steak again. But then perhaps you're one of those vegan freaks?
The point at which a 'mass of cells' becomes a human being is very much up for contention. It isn't nearly as clear-cut as you'd like to tell everyone, nor as you would wish. Welcome to reality, son.
Max
An atheist, on the other hand, would hang onto his disbelief in God regardless of any proof.
That simply isn't true. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but if someone were to present credible evidence that this 'god' existed logic would dictate a change in view. Not to mention a party, since who wouldn't approve of a god that makes no demands and delivers free chocolate?
In any event, one can easily conclude that no gods exist based on the same reasoning that one concludes that the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that you're going to act like an idiot and insist that Santa is a bullshit fantasy when the fat old man pulls up in his sleigh with a bunch of magical flying reindeer. It isn't an atheist that would insist that the reality before him is false, but rather a moron.
Max
Let me rephrase that: Atheism is a strong belief that God does not exist.
No, it's an acceptance as fact that no religion on Earth has yet to prove the existence of their favorite god or gods.
To restate the poster, I'll believe the leprechauns exist when you show them to me. Until then, I have better things to waste my time on.
Max
You assume that religions exist to serve people. But you must see that if a religion, any religion is true, then it must dictate the goals of humanity.
But since it's impossible to prove the truth of any religion to the satisfaction of all (or even most) people, religion has no place dictating the behavior of any person who doesn't wish to abide by it.
And therefore, religion has absolutely no business interfering with government, in any form. People have insisted on the contrary in the past, and death has always followed their foolishness.
Max
Slashdot has always been an American-oriented site. If you had read the fucking FAQ, you'd realize that. But since you haven't, here's an excerpt:
"Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S."
Don't like it? Start your own international version of Slashdot. It's certainly more productive than whining about it.
Max
How on earth can you be undecided?
I suppose someone with your ego would indeed have a difficult time with it, especially since you believe that your 'informed' vote is actually worth more than those who have yet to choose a candidate.
How can a person be undecided? Well, it's a fairly easy thing to be when you take a good, long look at both candidates and realise they're both fucking douchebags (see sig). Mouthpieces for existing power structures, both interested only in increasing government power and destroying individual rights and freedoms. Where choosing either gets you the same result, i.e., a bunch of power-hungry assholes shitting all over the Constitution for their own gain, although the reasons they pay lip-service too are different.
I'm voting for Kerry. I think he's a sleazebag of the worst sort, a typical politician through and through, but I'm going to vote for the fucking bastard anyway. Why? Because just as it's a truism that politicians are corrupt wannabe dictators, it's also a truism that the two parties fight like gangs arguing over turf. If the Republicans control Congress and the Democrats the White House, it's my best shot at deadlocking the government over the next four years, and making it as ineffectual as possible.
So far as I'm concerned the government is pretty much a tool for power and control, far too large and far too hungry in a land that supposedly values individual freedom. The two primary political parties have all the morals of a Colombian drug cartel; less, actually, since drug cartels usually don't lie about what it is they're selling you. So my only hope, in this gods-forsaken system, is to do my very best to break it; or at least slow it down and tangle it up with infighting.
That's why I was undecided until recently. The candidates are scum and neither are worth voting for. But a vote for Kerry is just about the only way I can see to muck up the fucking gears and keep the goddamned government from getting even more powerful over the next four years.
It's easy to be undecided when the only candidates who have a real shot of winning the election are swine. The question becomes "which of these pigs will do less damage?"
Max
You could get rid of much of this by only allowing
'free' positive moderation. Any negative moderation would also deduct a point from YOUR OWN karma.
My guess is that the people most interested in negative moderation also have the least (or no) karma. If that's the case, their ability to pursue a personal agenda in the form of modding down folks they don't happen to like would come to an abrupt end.
Max
This test can't properly judge libertarianism. For example, the following question:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."
cannot be answered by a libertarian. A true libertarian doesn't attempt to use government power to control EITHER.
Max
I think we should go back to the old Icelandic tradition of having the Speaker of the House read all the laws of the land to the other members of Congress over the course of every three years.
You're the only other person I've ever heard say this. I've often told people that if Congress were required to read every federal law prior to opening a session we might actually end up with a sane number of sensible laws.
Max
This has happened a couple of times to me as well, most recently a couple of weeks back when I criticized the EU and socialism in general. Whenever I say anything even remotely negative about any of these topics a band of Euro-trolls blasts all of my comments into oblivion.
I think I lost about 20 karma points on a single round of commentary. It wasn't enough to remove my automatic '2' posting level, which surprised me, but I've certainly got to be close to that point by now. No matter how abrasive or insulting I've been, I've never been karma-bombed on anything else the entire time I've been on Slashdot, on both accounts (this one and my older, lost one which was five-digit, not six). This leads me to believe that the folks primarily responsible for this behavior are not American liberals, but European liberals with an especial dislike for free speech - at least the sort of free speech they disagree with.
I'm willing to bet that if European accounts were temporarily suspended from modding the karma-bombing would stop. At the very least it would be an interesting experiment to try.
Max
When the swiftboat vets get equal time on /. with Michael Moore, then I'll believe it!
When both are ridiculed for their perversion of the truth and their outright lies, then I'LL believe it.
Max
The closest anyone comes is the libertarians, but they tend to be reflexively anti-government in a way that the classical liberals never were.
Given that both of the major parties seem to only be interested in increasing the power of government at the cost of individual rights at every opportunity, it's no wonder that the libertarians are reflexively anti-government. So long as the government remains in the hands of the DemoRepublicans it's difficult NOT to be anti-government while supporting the rights of the individual.
Max
It doesn't seem like the Democrats pay much heed to our founding fathers or our Constitution, either. The difference is that the Republicans are less subtle about their attempts to piss all over the most sacred document in the land than their counterparts are.
I despise both parties, and everyone who unthinkingly supports their candidates. The loyalty of any citizen should be to the Constitution first and foremost, and to the shyster fucks who represent their parties a distant second. So far as I'm concerned, reversing these two things makes you a traitor, utterly unworthy to call yourself 'American'.
Max
moderators knocking anything against their personal views
The moderators ALWAYS do this. Try saying anything at all negative about liberalism or socialism and see what happens. Even if the Americans are willing to give it a pass once the time zones roll around and the Europeans get wind of what you've said you'll be modded into oblivion almost immediately.
Max
And I would gladly get my .38 and blow your fucking head off if you made the attempt.
It's comments like yours that argue best AGAINST gun control, and for that I thank god that loons like you are willing to post their proclivities for doing violence to those who disagree with them. So long as people like you exist, I'll get to keep my guns, if only to protect myself and others from the crazies.
Max
but removing that murderous dictator from power is a bad thing?
Well then, let's not be so selective about it. There are over 100 dictators of various countries world-wide; when are we going to go kick THEIR asses? And let's not forget that some of these evil dictators are our ALLIES.
Max
Failed campains (Somalia) enforced this.
Somalia wasn't a failed campaign. The operation in Somalia succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. The problem with Somalia was that the administration lost interest; a non-problem isn't news and won't get you votes.
I had a number of friends in Somalia during the campaign. Each and every one of them said that the operation was an unqualified success and they were pissed as hell that they were pulled out of the area, especially when everyone there knew it was for political reasons and nothing else. They had made a real difference in peoples lives, and knew that the moment they left the thugs, gangs, warlords, and genocidal government would take over once more.
If anything we should've stayed in Somalia, permanently.
Max
I'm pretty sure that a good many Americans have realized by now that Fox News is anything but unbiased journalism. That ones that won't admit to it probably agree with the Fox agenda and are happy that opposing or contrary news items which might trouble their one-world-view mindset aren't aired.
Max
And this is complete bullshit, the sort of pandering crap put forward by people who absolutely INSIST that everyone occupy a labeled box - in your case, 'liberal', 'moderate', or 'conservative'.
There are quite a few people who are liberal on one issue, conservative on another, and moderate on a third. Despite the fact that they refuse to jump into one of the boxes provided for them, 'studies' like this force them into the box that the people doing the study think suits them best. And that we call 'tripe', because it sure as hell isn't science.
Max
If military service is a primary measure of whether or not a candidate has the 'right stuff' to be President, then Bush also fails - miserably.
All you've done is prove that by your own standards BOTH candidates are unfit for office.
Max
if someone says something bad about the Unions or Socialism
That's because socialism is antithetical to free speech. It absolutely relies on quashing vocal dissent and attempting to enforce groupthink upon the population as a whole. Socialism is no better at avoiding the establishment of power elites than any other form of government, nor will it ever be. Socialism is not a democratic or inclusive form of government.
The only difference between what's called 'socialism' today and the monarchies of old is that arguments over 'divine right' have been replaced with the battle cry 'for the greater good'. Ignoring the fundamental fact, of course, that there is no such thing as a 'greater good', and that you can only do good for a society by doing good for the individuals that comprise that society.
Ironically, the most socialist government in all the world - in terms of following true, economics-oriented socialism - is also a leader in civil rights. That country being Sweden, of course. It seems that the sort of 'socialism' bandied about by certain extremist European radicals is about as close to real socialism as the Soviet Union or China is to actual communism.
Max