Whatever...nice cheap shot at the U.S. The guy first didn't even say he was from the U.S. Second of all, everyone has a fair chance of getting health care in this country. It's not like people's finances are given to them by the government. They earned it, they worked hard for it. Countries that give away their healthcare have long lines and things tend to be just as bad or worse than the U.S. If I break a bone in my body, I don't want to have to weight for a day or so before I can get it treated. This is America where the American dream is to make something of yourself - not have your government make you who they want you to be, or ration out what they declare to be "good healthcare."
Yes, you're right. But more often than in the political world, engineering brings people together. I'm talking pure engineering, not engineering skewed by money and politics. Though that may be a less common type of engineering, the pure kind, it is nonetheless what it's all about - people that are amazed and motivated by challenges and technology. But I know we live in a less than ideal world. Regulation however, is never the cure for poor engineering - regrouping and getting better people on the job is the answer.
Yeah, when engineering fails for an existing solution yes. But the beauty of having a mind and applying the engineering process is things can rapidly be made better to work around those holes that are discovered. Lawyers, and politicians only make people more mad at each other. Working together on an engineering solution brings people together and not arguing with each other!
Oh come on, what a rediculous argument. You know what I was saying and it was not that we should get the right to kill or just any right. Why on earth should the government provide healthcare for all. Have you not taken (or understood) your basic macro-economics. The government will never be more efficient at distributing healthcare than a free market will be. It's not just about freedom and rights - it's just about basic common sense. As for making you sad, I'm sorry. But it's people like you who ignorantly and blindly put faith in government to do things like universal healthcare that makes me want to puke.
Thank you, it is so good to see someone thing independently for once as opposed to being brainwashed by the Democrats. You are absolutely right on all of your points in your post. Yes liberals can express their views but they'll still always be wrong. We don't want a social democracy in this country. If you want that Democrats, go live in Europe or Canada. This country is all about the freedom to choose and if you assign healthcare to all, this takes away from that freedom. It doesn't give healthcare companies freedom, it doesn't give drug makers freedom, and it doesn't even give citizens the freedom to choose whether to have healthcare or not. Right now, if you want healthcare, go get a job that has healthcare. Employers are hiring again, now's the time to get a good job.
Yes, you do make a very good point. However, this type of thinking, though appearing to be financially responsible, is the reason why, for instance, products like Microsoft Windows still is plagued by security hole after security hole. It did not initially create the security holes, because that's Microsoft's fault, but it doesn't do anything to help the situation. If companies want to play the liability (or blame) game, then security will always be a joke in most commercial software. This is because, instead of taking action after an attack to remedy the situation, a company just wants financial restitution. Sometimes things have to be a total loss before they get better. Linux (and other open source OSes like the BSDs) are much more secure than Windows because it operates outside of money. Money does not drive it. Security will be a concern whether someone funds Linux or not. Security in Windows was never an issue until the Internet took off and crackers exploited the bugs just waiting to be found. From day one however, Linux was designed to be inherantly more secure than Windows.
No, security isn't everything that makes up a good OS, but this was just an example as to why I think many companies today are ignorantly still choosing Windows as their OS. The other reason is people don't like change, even if it's better in the long run. But over time, companies that don't run risks usually lose out. If you want liability with Linux from a company, then buy Red Hat or Suse.
"Just from the fack that Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own people was justification enough to remove him from power."
Had murdered. We didn't prevent any NEW killings.
Meanwhile, we were ignoring certain events in Africa where the killings were HAPPENING AT THAT VERY MOMENT.
So, you think it is better to let someone kill hundreds of thousands of people just so we can "get" someone who kill a lot of people YEARS EARLIER?
That's some seriously messed up priorities you got there.
Well lets see, I never said that I wouldn't support helping the people in Africa. But what I'm saying is, if WMD are never found (and haven't been so far), then it was justification enough to take out Saddam just from the fact that he's a murderous criminal. Murder is wrong whether you invade another country or not. He killed millions of his own people and I'm saying that's enough people to warrant taking him out. If you disagree then fine...he would still be in power today then killing more people (he didn't just do that in the past). Yes diplomacy was a good idea and in hindsight it probably would have been best to keep going...but given the circumstances Bush had to deal with - after 911 and the threat of terrorism. How did he know whether Saddam wouldn't be a threat to the US? Looking back is such a convenience...but you don't know these things until after it's already happened! I for one don't want to see anymore U.S. citizens killed. I don't want to see anyone killed for that matter including Iraqi soldiers, but we at the time of *war* (in stars because we didn't official declare it constitutionally) must unfortunately kill some soldiers...that's what war is. I'm not just trying to defend Bush but moreso trying to get YOU to see that your arguments use the convenience of hindsight like I mentioned before. Try being the President for one day and I think you'd have a whole new respect for the job. I for one would never want that job...too much pressure.
Not a bad defense I must say. And glad to hear you're a Christian as well. I am not part of the GOP, I vote for the best man/woman at the time of the election. I've never blindly voted a straight ticket in my life and I never want to. I consider myself libertarian. And yes I agree it is very important about the separation between church and state and that shouldn't be changed. But I do in general see a lot of lack of addressing the important issues by people on the left. I think abortion is dead wrong - yet no one on the left really ever thinks that way. I don't care if it's progressive thinking...I think it's wrong and I'll almost never vote for someone who supports such a murderous act. If someone from the left said it was wrong and really believed that and in general had good economic and political views, I would vote for them over someone like George Bush anyday. Why does being on the left automatically mean that a politician supports (in general) big government, increase taxes, give more money to the poor people and forget that we are a nation of many people, poor, middleclass and rich, and support things like abortion and gay rights which they know will alienate anybody who follows most religions properly.
The point is, Hillary Clinton supported giving Bush the Congressional go-ahead to call Sadam Hussein out because of the search for WMD. That's why Clinton is in on this thing. It wasn't just Bush who believed this. So I'm saying is don't put on Bush or the Republicans what Bill Clinton should have done a long time ago. Just from the fack that Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own people was justification enough to remove him from power. I suppose you would have said to leave Hitler in power back in WWII if you don't think we should have taken Saddam out.
Wow, someone has a bias. Maybe you should ask the founding Fathers of this nation on what type of principles we were founded on. I think you'd fine most of the major ones were all Christians or at least believed in God like Thomas Jefferson. And of course I agree with you on the seperation of church and state. But how are these Texas GOP people pushing what they believe anymore than what Bill Clinton or any other Democrat does? Oh, and by the way, I'm both a Fox and an NPR listener. And I listen to NPR everyday whereas I watch FOX about once a week.
I watched FOX mainly during that time and I don't think they're linked. I also watched CNN, a lot too and listen to NPR. I also like to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Wouldn't you say I'm pretty varied there? I'm also on the Democratic party mailing list but I'm not a democrat. I like to cover my bases and make logical decisions based on a wealth of information. Not just from a single biased source.
Yes, I elimated them as being redundant. If you read other things and listen to various radio programs on a wide spectrum like Rush Limbaugh versus NPR, Bill O'Reilly versus any liberal commentator, you'll see the wide spectrum of opinions. The left always says he's a liar, and the right usually upholds that he's not lieing. Can we really make a judgement from these things? Over time yes, we learn to trust various news commentators and of course one can't argue with the test of time. Some might say Bush lied on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. First let me say that the search isn't over. Second, Bush was only reporting what his intelligence said. If you don't believe that, go take a look at a recent interview a couple of months ago of Hilary Clinton on the Today Show...she said that Bill Clinton received the same intelligence on Iraq.
I know what they were saying. Of course debt is bad and no I wouldn't want to put it onto my kids or grandkids down the line. But I'm saying taxes suck...period.
hehe, yeah...we'd better just blaim it on economics.:) Now if Bush one day claimed he was dictator, then we'd have something to worry about...wouldn't we?
Yeah, I guess that'd be true if you listen to the biased media. But if you read a wide spectrum of reports on what he does...more often than not he's reported as being honest and moral. And ABC, CBS, NBC, etc doesn't count...that's redundant...they all have the same bias. Once you've watched on, you know what the others will say too.
Alright, then you send more of your paycheck to the government. I for one like to decide what I want my money spent on in a free market. If you like giving to the government so much, why not go live under a dictator in some other country like Cuba? I'm sure you'd get your money put to good use there.
Thank you, it's about time I found another person who thinks logically on this website. I thought slashdotters called themselves *scientists* - it never ceases to amaze me sometimes just how ignorant people on this site really are. You'd think pro-big government and scientist would be oxymorons. But there's plenty of that type of thinking on this site. And it's sad - if only they would truly think critically instead of being suckered in by the extremely biased media.
Yeah, so...that's politics. How could he get elected if he only promised things that people don't want? I can see it now - "I George Bush promise to bring you increased taxes next term if you elect me again as president!" Oh wait, sorry...those are Democrats who do those kinds of things. My mistakes.:)
Yeah so, the Internet is what people make of it. Many people don't give Bush a reasonable try. Why? Who knows. I guess people only value presidents who only give them what they want and don't value men who bring morality, honesty, and traditional values to the white house anymore. But why should I worry? I'll move to a country that values these long before a lack of these values brings destruction and chaos to our great America.
Ok, so I agree with you...but I'm sick and tired of ignorant people giving the success of the 90's to Clinton. How does one man control a free market? They don't, and you're exactly right. It's economics, not a single president. But for heated political debate, I'll say it's because of Bush way before I ever say it's due to Clinton.:)
What, so you like being taxed? Do you honestly like giving the government 40% of your paycheck...your hard earned money? Since when is giving back to the citizens such a bad thing? And look what it's done - it's given the economy a chance to rejuvinate - to get back on it's legs. And that's exactly what's happened. If you're so ungreatful, go live in a country that like s taxing it's people like most countries in Europe. I for one like living in a republic, and not a social democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever...nice cheap shot at the U.S. The guy first didn't even say he was from the U.S. Second of all, everyone has a fair chance of getting health care in this country. It's not like people's finances are given to them by the government. They earned it, they worked hard for it. Countries that give away their healthcare have long lines and things tend to be just as bad or worse than the U.S. If I break a bone in my body, I don't want to have to weight for a day or so before I can get it treated. This is America where the American dream is to make something of yourself - not have your government make you who they want you to be, or ration out what they declare to be "good healthcare."
Yes, you're right. But more often than in the political world, engineering brings people together. I'm talking pure engineering, not engineering skewed by money and politics. Though that may be a less common type of engineering, the pure kind, it is nonetheless what it's all about - people that are amazed and motivated by challenges and technology. But I know we live in a less than ideal world. Regulation however, is never the cure for poor engineering - regrouping and getting better people on the job is the answer.
Yeah, when engineering fails for an existing solution yes. But the beauty of having a mind and applying the engineering process is things can rapidly be made better to work around those holes that are discovered. Lawyers, and politicians only make people more mad at each other. Working together on an engineering solution brings people together and not arguing with each other!
Oh come on, what a rediculous argument. You know what I was saying and it was not that we should get the right to kill or just any right. Why on earth should the government provide healthcare for all. Have you not taken (or understood) your basic macro-economics. The government will never be more efficient at distributing healthcare than a free market will be. It's not just about freedom and rights - it's just about basic common sense. As for making you sad, I'm sorry. But it's people like you who ignorantly and blindly put faith in government to do things like universal healthcare that makes me want to puke.
Thank you, it is so good to see someone thing independently for once as opposed to being brainwashed by the Democrats. You are absolutely right on all of your points in your post. Yes liberals can express their views but they'll still always be wrong. We don't want a social democracy in this country. If you want that Democrats, go live in Europe or Canada. This country is all about the freedom to choose and if you assign healthcare to all, this takes away from that freedom. It doesn't give healthcare companies freedom, it doesn't give drug makers freedom, and it doesn't even give citizens the freedom to choose whether to have healthcare or not. Right now, if you want healthcare, go get a job that has healthcare. Employers are hiring again, now's the time to get a good job.
Yes, you do make a very good point. However, this type of thinking, though appearing to be financially responsible, is the reason why, for instance, products like Microsoft Windows still is plagued by security hole after security hole. It did not initially create the security holes, because that's Microsoft's fault, but it doesn't do anything to help the situation. If companies want to play the liability (or blame) game, then security will always be a joke in most commercial software. This is because, instead of taking action after an attack to remedy the situation, a company just wants financial restitution. Sometimes things have to be a total loss before they get better. Linux (and other open source OSes like the BSDs) are much more secure than Windows because it operates outside of money. Money does not drive it. Security will be a concern whether someone funds Linux or not. Security in Windows was never an issue until the Internet took off and crackers exploited the bugs just waiting to be found. From day one however, Linux was designed to be inherantly more secure than Windows.
No, security isn't everything that makes up a good OS, but this was just an example as to why I think many companies today are ignorantly still choosing Windows as their OS. The other reason is people don't like change, even if it's better in the long run. But over time, companies that don't run risks usually lose out. If you want liability with Linux from a company, then buy Red Hat or Suse.
Alright, prove it. You have no debating skills anyway. I'd like to see you cover all of the holes that you've made in your replies. :)
"Just from the fack that Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own people was justification enough to remove him from power."
Had murdered. We didn't prevent any NEW killings.
Meanwhile, we were ignoring certain events in Africa where the killings were HAPPENING AT THAT VERY MOMENT.
So, you think it is better to let someone kill hundreds of thousands of people just so we can "get" someone who kill a lot of people YEARS EARLIER?
That's some seriously messed up priorities you got there.
Well lets see, I never said that I wouldn't support helping the people in Africa. But what I'm saying is, if WMD are never found (and haven't been so far), then it was justification enough to take out Saddam just from the fact that he's a murderous criminal. Murder is wrong whether you invade another country or not. He killed millions of his own people and I'm saying that's enough people to warrant taking him out. If you disagree then fine...he would still be in power today then killing more people (he didn't just do that in the past). Yes diplomacy was a good idea and in hindsight it probably would have been best to keep going...but given the circumstances Bush had to deal with - after 911 and the threat of terrorism. How did he know whether Saddam wouldn't be a threat to the US? Looking back is such a convenience...but you don't know these things until after it's already happened! I for one don't want to see anymore U.S. citizens killed. I don't want to see anyone killed for that matter including Iraqi soldiers, but we at the time of *war* (in stars because we didn't official declare it constitutionally) must unfortunately kill some soldiers...that's what war is. I'm not just trying to defend Bush but moreso trying to get YOU to see that your arguments use the convenience of hindsight like I mentioned before. Try being the President for one day and I think you'd have a whole new respect for the job. I for one would never want that job...too much pressure.
Not a bad defense I must say. And glad to hear you're a Christian as well. I am not part of the GOP, I vote for the best man/woman at the time of the election. I've never blindly voted a straight ticket in my life and I never want to. I consider myself libertarian. And yes I agree it is very important about the separation between church and state and that shouldn't be changed. But I do in general see a lot of lack of addressing the important issues by people on the left. I think abortion is dead wrong - yet no one on the left really ever thinks that way. I don't care if it's progressive thinking...I think it's wrong and I'll almost never vote for someone who supports such a murderous act. If someone from the left said it was wrong and really believed that and in general had good economic and political views, I would vote for them over someone like George Bush anyday. Why does being on the left automatically mean that a politician supports (in general) big government, increase taxes, give more money to the poor people and forget that we are a nation of many people, poor, middleclass and rich, and support things like abortion and gay rights which they know will alienate anybody who follows most religions properly.
Yes, I read BBC News. Not much of a fan of Al-Jazeera but it is interesting, I'll give it that much.
The point is, Hillary Clinton supported giving Bush the Congressional go-ahead to call Sadam Hussein out because of the search for WMD. That's why Clinton is in on this thing. It wasn't just Bush who believed this. So I'm saying is don't put on Bush or the Republicans what Bill Clinton should have done a long time ago. Just from the fack that Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own people was justification enough to remove him from power. I suppose you would have said to leave Hitler in power back in WWII if you don't think we should have taken Saddam out.
Wow, someone has a bias. Maybe you should ask the founding Fathers of this nation on what type of principles we were founded on. I think you'd fine most of the major ones were all Christians or at least believed in God like Thomas Jefferson. And of course I agree with you on the seperation of church and state. But how are these Texas GOP people pushing what they believe anymore than what Bill Clinton or any other Democrat does? Oh, and by the way, I'm both a Fox and an NPR listener. And I listen to NPR everyday whereas I watch FOX about once a week.
I watched FOX mainly during that time and I don't think they're linked. I also watched CNN, a lot too and listen to NPR. I also like to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Wouldn't you say I'm pretty varied there? I'm also on the Democratic party mailing list but I'm not a democrat. I like to cover my bases and make logical decisions based on a wealth of information. Not just from a single biased source.
Yes, I elimated them as being redundant. If you read other things and listen to various radio programs on a wide spectrum like Rush Limbaugh versus NPR, Bill O'Reilly versus any liberal commentator, you'll see the wide spectrum of opinions. The left always says he's a liar, and the right usually upholds that he's not lieing. Can we really make a judgement from these things? Over time yes, we learn to trust various news commentators and of course one can't argue with the test of time. Some might say Bush lied on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. First let me say that the search isn't over. Second, Bush was only reporting what his intelligence said. If you don't believe that, go take a look at a recent interview a couple of months ago of Hilary Clinton on the Today Show...she said that Bill Clinton received the same intelligence on Iraq.
I know what they were saying. Of course debt is bad and no I wouldn't want to put it onto my kids or grandkids down the line. But I'm saying taxes suck...period.
hehe, yeah...we'd better just blaim it on economics. :) Now if Bush one day claimed he was dictator, then we'd have something to worry about...wouldn't we?
Nice FUD. :) Try again.
Yeah, I guess that'd be true if you listen to the biased media. But if you read a wide spectrum of reports on what he does...more often than not he's reported as being honest and moral. And ABC, CBS, NBC, etc doesn't count...that's redundant...they all have the same bias. Once you've watched on, you know what the others will say too.
Alright, then you send more of your paycheck to the government. I for one like to decide what I want my money spent on in a free market. If you like giving to the government so much, why not go live under a dictator in some other country like Cuba? I'm sure you'd get your money put to good use there.
If you think President Bush is bad, check out what Clinton proposed in his last State of the Union Address:
n Sp ending.htm
:)
http://www.markblackburn.org/Papers/StateOfUnio
Kinda makes Bush's spending seem pretty mild.
Thank you, it's about time I found another person who thinks logically on this website. I thought slashdotters called themselves *scientists* - it never ceases to amaze me sometimes just how ignorant people on this site really are. You'd think pro-big government and scientist would be oxymorons. But there's plenty of that type of thinking on this site. And it's sad - if only they would truly think critically instead of being suckered in by the extremely biased media.
Yeah, so...that's politics. How could he get elected if he only promised things that people don't want? I can see it now - "I George Bush promise to bring you increased taxes next term if you elect me again as president!" Oh wait, sorry...those are Democrats who do those kinds of things. My mistakes. :)
Yeah so, the Internet is what people make of it. Many people don't give Bush a reasonable try. Why? Who knows. I guess people only value presidents who only give them what they want and don't value men who bring morality, honesty, and traditional values to the white house anymore. But why should I worry? I'll move to a country that values these long before a lack of these values brings destruction and chaos to our great America.
Ok, so I agree with you...but I'm sick and tired of ignorant people giving the success of the 90's to Clinton. How does one man control a free market? They don't, and you're exactly right. It's economics, not a single president. But for heated political debate, I'll say it's because of Bush way before I ever say it's due to Clinton. :)
What, so you like being taxed? Do you honestly like giving the government 40% of your paycheck...your hard earned money? Since when is giving back to the citizens such a bad thing? And look what it's done - it's given the economy a chance to rejuvinate - to get back on it's legs. And that's exactly what's happened. If you're so ungreatful, go live in a country that like s taxing it's people like most countries in Europe. I for one like living in a republic, and not a social democracy.