Generally speaking, I think the easiest description of the role of government is "securing the rights of the people".
And this is where ALL of the arguments spring from. I think everyone, regardless of political affiliation (sans anarchists, who don't really count), can agree with this one, as can most political philosophers since the 17th century (with their social contracts, and such).
The problem, though, is A) defining "rights", and B) delineating what scope of this protection we the citizens should expect/want. Obviously B is dependent on A. Sadly I haven't seen anyone actually give a coherent example of what a "right" is, or where the hell they come from, and most of what would fall under the B column is generally inchoate party dogma, and second hand mouth noise (all people subscribing to a proper-noun political ideology are generally guilty of this).
I am a socialist, and a social libertarian (lower case, and in the original definition of the word), pretty much an anti-libertarian, and we agree on the blanket definition of government. Everything then becomes a difference of semantics and scope. And, of course, we run into the problem of "who" we deem as capable of having rights... A lot of people think collections of individuals have rights, while some think only individuals have said rights, and collections deserve no protections as collections (only the individuals within them have rights).
All this said, I'm ok with drunk driving and no texting while driving laws. People are creating a direct danger to the rights of others through through their own choices. I'd even go along with restrictions on billboards on the sides of highways, they are designed to distract drivers, which creates a direct danger to others. Seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws, not so much.
Here I agree with you 100%. The government should not protect you from yourself, ever.
I find it rather depressing that I'm so happy about agreeing with people of almost opposite politics these days. It seems our public discourse has turned into: "I, as a x, completely disagree with you because YOU ARE NOT an x!", where "x" is whatever political dogma you self-identify with.
Before anyone starts this "well any operating system is vulnerable" shit, I am not interested.
You should put that at the beginning of your post as a disclaimer, so we all know you aren't actually saying a damn thing.
In the last 4 years of running Vista I haven't had a single virus or malware infection. The 4 years I was running XP, I had one virus. and that was mostly because I was too dumb to update my antivirus program before hooking up to a badly secured college network during the first week of school.
So yes, Windows is TERRIBLE when it comes to security, one virus/malware in 8 years.
Oh wait... 99% of all computer problems, reguardless of OS, is the fault of the lump between the monitor and keyboard. Windows has more users, thus more idiots using it, thus more problems as a whole.
Sorry for letting a bit of reality get in the way of your sophomoric OS troll.
What really, really pissed me off was Vista. XP's security control centre quite happily recognised Avira, but Vista "conveniently" failed to recognise it.
This is very odd, I'm using Avira on my Vista box, and Security Center has no problem recognizing it.
The fact that you even try to claim the above shows that you are an ignorant sheep. Try to do even a minimum of research before recycling the lies you hear from FOX, MEMRI, and friends.
So you deny that Iran is hostile towards Israel?
The fact a blatant and easily disproven lie has been modded insightful shows just where/. is these days. Headed right for the toilet.
In the most ironic typing style I can muster: You must be new here.
Since when were we repressing and slaughtering Israelis in Israel?
From Wikipedia: As of 2008, Arab citizens of Israel comprise just over 20% of the country's total population. The majority of these identify themselves as Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship.[4]
To be really quick on this "Israeli Citizen != Jewish". I could even draw you a quick Venn diagram if you wanted.
please cite credible references besides FOX and friends. Iran is a wonderful country and your accusations are without merit.
The last election is decent proof. Even if Ahmadinejad won the election there was enough irregularities to warrant at least some 3rd party checking. Not that it matters since Iran is a theocracy with a puppet president, Khamenei is the real power, and isn't actually elected.
I view democratic ideals to be very important, as does much of the world.
Iran also has had some problems with playing nicely with people who don't want to be Muslim in their borders, like the Baha'i.
The government of Iran is a bit wonky. I'd say claiming the desire to "wipe Israel" of the map would fall under the "bully" category quite well.
Nope. He did not. He might have some ties to them (they were in basically the same buisness as him, organization) but he was never an employee of them.
Notice: This post isn't saying anything positive or negative about Obama or ACORN, its just correcting facts.
That makes no sense. And isn't really applicable to much, even if it did. Sure, a lot of prejudice comes from bad experiences, but these experiences probably pale next to what we were raised with. And when it comes to the Middle East, I doubt that this plays any role whatsoever, barring the occasional antisemitic moron and anti-muslim/arab slob.
I, for example, have nothing against Jews or Arabs (or Muslims in general). I no more beef against there groups than I have against Christians, at least. I have met trash from all walks of life, and all cultures in about equal quantities. That said, I have major problems with Israel in general (Israel != Jews), I also have serious problems with many of the Muslim/Arab countries in the region (Iran/Syria/Lebenon/etc... != Muslim/Arabs). This, as obvious from my parentheticals, have nothing to do with ethnic groups or religions, but with the actions of governments. I am also quite fed up with the Government of the US, but most of my friends and family happen to be American (as am I).
Israel is an arrogant, human rights violating, violent bully, just like Iran. Israel might be a wee bit worse, since they are actively repressing and slaughtering their own citizens. This isn't saying Iran is much better, mind. If any country, run by Jews, or not, acted like Israel I would condemn their actions as well. Perhaps not quite as vocally, since Israel as a strangely strong voice in American politics, and has a huge and vocal lobby who is constantly busy trying to brand all dissent with them as racism. The Iranians, at least, don't have this.
You mean where the population is an order of magnitude smaller? Also places where the average temperature doesn't get very high, very often, and thus most people don't have air conditioning (damn liberals, and their lack of air conditioning).
Oh wait... your slandering people based on their differing opinions than your own... Sorry for the interruption.
Worse; the people vote for those who spend the most money of advertisements and publicists, meaning the people with the most money. These people generally got a lion-share of this money from lobbyists. Then these people, in turn, vote for things that serve the people who allowed them into office (not the people).
The problem then lies firmly at the feet of the voters. Basically, the average voter is a complete moron.
Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car
on
The Fresca Rebellion
·
· Score: 1
According to the list... These is a bunch of small islands, then Kuwait, then the US. So, of all the developed countries, or countries with a population above... say... 5 million, the US is the second fattest, behind Kuwait.
Outside of being around 7'5", no one can weigh 300lbs and be healthy. Attractiveness is generally correlated (in an evolutionary sense) with the health of our mates, therefore someone who is 300lbs, on the whole, will not be attractive. If that is attractive to you, sobeit, but it is more a fetish than normal.
Your average supermodel also falls into this category of "not healthy = not attractive", the people who find supermodels hot are the same people who think the airbrushed-to-the-point-where-it-might-as-well-be-fake Maxim models are hot (same for Playboy, sometimes I wonder if they stopped having actual women in them, and settle for 3D models and CGI). But then again these are the same people who probably love cartoon women. Its called "hyper sexuality" where you take normal "sexual organs" and over emphasize them.... Actually most run-way models fall into the "legal pedophile" mode, since they look like adolescents as far as their features go.
In the middle you, of course, have healthy women who may or not be attractive based on features other than weight (mostly symmetry, it turns out, which oddly, is another sign of health).
That said, if my girlfriend started to gain weight rapidly, I'd insist she go to a doctor, to make sure it isn't a medical issue. If it wasn't, I would tell her to watch her weight/behavior, since obesity that isn't based on glandular problems generally represents a personality problem or character flaw, and often a mental illness. If that failed I would dump her, since our lifestyles, and personalities, drifted apart. The weight, in this case, is nothing more than a symptom of deeper problems.
And yes, my girlfriend is 5'3, and no, she doesn't weight 90lbs.
I didn't notice you actually backing up that statement with proof anywhere in your post... And no, "I don't like these people." doesn't count as proof, nor does "zomg socialism", since then you must prove how socialism is bad, or a failure (which you'll find it isn't).
Its like saying, and pardon my Godwin, "Hitler liked dogs, therefore dogs are evil.", obviously this is a fallacy, and more-so, dumb. Though I'd think that the "zomg socialism!" arguments are just as bad as the typical Godwin ones. X was bad, X liked Y, therefore X; is bad is just sloppy thinking, and doesn't really have any relevance on the utility or truth value of Y.
It because Canada hasn't decided that the military is the single most important thing in the universe, over the health, and education of its citizens. Canada, dare I say, is somewhat sane. My fair country, on the other hand, is completely batshit crazy, and about as corrupt as many 3rd world dictatorships.
I always find the "socialized whatnot" debates to be hilarious. The reasoning is generally "But we are America, and we're #1, so anything we're currently doing is the best in the world!"... American Exceptionalism. Which basically is political and historical myopia. There are tons of countries doing much better than us, on just about every measurable metric. But being that they aren't America, they must be doing worse than us, because... well... we're #1.
Sadly, outside of our huge superfluous military, we're damn far from #1 in any valuable metric. By valuable metric I of course mean those criteria that directly effect the citizens of the US, such as health, mortality, and education. Hell, we're even not as wealthy (on a per capita basis) as most of the developed word any more.
But for some reason its a terrible thing to say "there is something TERRIBLY wrong here". All you get for saying that are shrill cries of "you hate America" and "socialism", by a bunch of morons who don't even know what socialism is. I haven't even quite grasped where the actual implied ad hominem lurks in being called a socialist yet. I've pissed off a lot of right-wingers by saying "yep." when called a socialist. Like I'm missing some terrible fact, or haven't gotten the memo that socialists eat babies. While all the Capitalists (aren't we all, like socialism and capitalism are opposed to each other), Randroids, Rightwingers, and Libertarians (in the capitalized sense) think that the solution is doing MORE of what put us in this place already. "So a little bit of poison made you sick, perhaps a shit-ton of it will cure you then!" This is just more myopia.
We're so blinded by flawed ideologies and unthinking nationalism that we can't even think that perhaps we are wrong.
Whats worse is that the right has decided that democracy is 100% wrong when it doesn't serve them. Hence them trying to make the term "liberal" a slander, when in fact a majority of the people has decided that it isn't, at least so far as to vote them into being the majority party in national politics.
We forgot that the government is here for us, the PEOPLE, not the corporations, not your wallet, not your silly religion-based morality, not your exclusive reading of what a "right is" and your psychic premonition of what the founders actually wanted (generally a religious, corporate state, it seems). The government is here to benefit me, and you. Not just you. The government should enable us as individuals, protect us, nurture us, and allow us to develop to the maximum of our abilities. No, they don't exist to make sure you make money at the expense of others, they actually were created to PROTECT us from that.
Sorry for the rant... American politics have been pissing me off lately (in a bipartisan way). Needed to vent.
Pretty much all of the leftist ideas being pushed currently on health care reform are little more than thinly disguised socialized medicine.
Odd... it looks to me like the government is forcing people to give money to corporate entities. This, at least in my opinion, isn't "socialized medicine", its flat out corporatism. Sure, the mythical "public option" gets a bit closer to it, but it still isn't really close to "socialism", at least not in the strange ultra-right-wing way of speaking, since there still is competition.
Can we please drop this argument now? IT ISN'T SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. I am your enemy, I'm a raging socialist lefty who wipes my ass with copies of Atlas Shrugged. If it was socialized medicine I would be FOR it. I am not, since its nothing but thinly veiled fascism (in the original definition of the term). If we must employ a socialism moniker, we can call it "corporate socialism".
Can we all at least be against it for the right reasons?
It's fine to eat prime rib and tira misu with some cheese-coated appetizer, but a coke, fries and grilled chicken sandwich from McDonalds is a sin?
I'm not rich, but I manage to eat prime, tiramisu and such from time to time. The difference here is the "time to time", a lot of people eat fast food crap as a staple of their diet, instead of an indulgence. I eat fast food around once a month (or less if I can help it), but some people eat it daily. Same with snack foods and soda. I might go months without drinking a single soda, but some people go through a six pack a day, or those obnoxious 100oz 7-11 tankers.
Its about moderation. Which, further, is about education. Eating healthy isn't much more expensive than eating badly, and generally it tastes much better. Go price healthy foods (not organic, but just plain healthy) over fatty, empty, foods, you'll find that there isn't much of a price difference. I can go to McDonalds for roughly the same price I can go to my local Pita/Gyro restaurant, one is somewhat good for you, the other isn't really food at all.
Its more of a stupid tax, which is something I'm fine with.
No, the universal version of "[citation needed]" is you said something that you expect other people to listen to, but supplied no evidence, or reason to believe you. The onus is on the presenter to provide some degree of evidence for their claims.
You stated something as a fact, but didn't me any reason to accept it as such.
Would you read an academic paper, or essay, which completely lacked sources and cites?
Ahh... Infowars, probably the most trust worthy source that ever existed. I especially loved the "Obama is a zionist, muslim" one, oh.. and the "Truther" crap that they spread. If the things they generally espoused were true, I'd trust the government MORE, since they would be infinitely more competent than I view them as now.
I'm guessing that there IS some infliltration of these anarchist groups, this is obvious. But I severely doubt that the wackos are all "gubermint plants," barring actual, you know, evidence. Unless of course we say all the wackos in the Glenn Beck/Tea Party scene are also "gubermint plants" to make the right wing look inept as well. Which would be nice, since their making both extremes look silly, and thus it is a vast MODERATE conspiracy... Which, as a moderate, is pretty awesome.
I spent some time going to a very liberal college, and can tell you from experience that most protesters (of any cause) really have no clue. I remember one friend actually organizing and staging a protest at my college, who had very hard time actually articulating what they exactly were protesting. I'm guessing this is common, if not the norm. Watch some videos of people interviewing the "death panel" protesters some time, they have no bloody clue either, and I doubt that most people think that they were actually staged.
That said, to protest doesn't necessarily mean that you are dumb, but the dumb ones get the media play. As a rule, I think most protests are a waste of time, and only serve to cheapen actual arguments. If you have a point, it is more productive to coherently tell it to people (with evidence and reasoning), than it is to dress up in silly costumes, chant slogans, and cause property damage.
I loved the looks of horror in one of my Intro to Philosophy classes where the rules stated "write no more than x pages." This instruction, obviously, was followed by a chorus of "but how long must it be?!" by all the kids taking it merely as a general humanity (I was there for some catch up credits). As a person proofing the papers, the quality went up significantly. In courses that are no creative writing you should mostly be grading for the ability to get the point across clearly and concisely. If you can make me understand your idea in three pages, it is much better than doing the same in ten pages.
In one of my research methods classes, the teacher actually downgraded for adjectives and "colorful language." It was brilliant.
Hey! I was a humanities undergrad (philosophy), and had to bathe daily in statistics and scientific methodology. I'm not saying all humanities undergrads were in the same boat, but you still made a false generalization. Not all humanities people are rank morons, or completely uninformed. I think the morons are pretty well uniformly distributed throughout ALL disciplines.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll feel safe when no one has arms anymore
I'm okay with this, then we all just graft on ursine appendages, as per the Second Amendment.
Generally speaking, I think the easiest description of the role of government is "securing the rights of the people".
And this is where ALL of the arguments spring from. I think everyone, regardless of political affiliation (sans anarchists, who don't really count), can agree with this one, as can most political philosophers since the 17th century (with their social contracts, and such).
The problem, though, is A) defining "rights", and B) delineating what scope of this protection we the citizens should expect/want. Obviously B is dependent on A. Sadly I haven't seen anyone actually give a coherent example of what a "right" is, or where the hell they come from, and most of what would fall under the B column is generally inchoate party dogma, and second hand mouth noise (all people subscribing to a proper-noun political ideology are generally guilty of this).
I am a socialist, and a social libertarian (lower case, and in the original definition of the word), pretty much an anti-libertarian, and we agree on the blanket definition of government. Everything then becomes a difference of semantics and scope. And, of course, we run into the problem of "who" we deem as capable of having rights... A lot of people think collections of individuals have rights, while some think only individuals have said rights, and collections deserve no protections as collections (only the individuals within them have rights).
All this said, I'm ok with drunk driving and no texting while driving laws. People are creating a direct danger to the rights of others through through their own choices. I'd even go along with restrictions on billboards on the sides of highways, they are designed to distract drivers, which creates a direct danger to others. Seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws, not so much.
Here I agree with you 100%. The government should not protect you from yourself, ever.
I find it rather depressing that I'm so happy about agreeing with people of almost opposite politics these days. It seems our public discourse has turned into: "I, as a x, completely disagree with you because YOU ARE NOT an x!", where "x" is whatever political dogma you self-identify with.
Before anyone starts this "well any operating system is vulnerable" shit, I am not interested.
You should put that at the beginning of your post as a disclaimer, so we all know you aren't actually saying a damn thing.
In the last 4 years of running Vista I haven't had a single virus or malware infection. The 4 years I was running XP, I had one virus. and that was mostly because I was too dumb to update my antivirus program before hooking up to a badly secured college network during the first week of school.
So yes, Windows is TERRIBLE when it comes to security, one virus/malware in 8 years.
Oh wait... 99% of all computer problems, reguardless of OS, is the fault of the lump between the monitor and keyboard. Windows has more users, thus more idiots using it, thus more problems as a whole.
Sorry for letting a bit of reality get in the way of your sophomoric OS troll.
What really, really pissed me off was Vista. XP's security control centre quite happily recognised Avira, but Vista "conveniently" failed to recognise it.
This is very odd, I'm using Avira on my Vista box, and Security Center has no problem recognizing it.
The fact that you even try to claim the above shows that you are an ignorant sheep. Try to do even a minimum of research before recycling the lies you hear from FOX, MEMRI, and friends.
So you deny that Iran is hostile towards Israel?
The fact a blatant and easily disproven lie has been modded insightful shows just where /. is these days. Headed right for the toilet.
In the most ironic typing style I can muster: You must be new here.
Since when were we repressing and slaughtering Israelis in Israel?
From Wikipedia: As of 2008, Arab citizens of Israel comprise just over 20% of the country's total population. The majority of these identify themselves as Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship.[4]
To be really quick on this "Israeli Citizen != Jewish". I could even draw you a quick Venn diagram if you wanted.
please cite credible references besides FOX and friends. Iran is a wonderful country and your accusations are without merit.
The last election is decent proof. Even if Ahmadinejad won the election there was enough irregularities to warrant at least some 3rd party checking. Not that it matters since Iran is a theocracy with a puppet president, Khamenei is the real power, and isn't actually elected.
I view democratic ideals to be very important, as does much of the world.
Iran also has had some problems with playing nicely with people who don't want to be Muslim in their borders, like the Baha'i.
The government of Iran is a bit wonky. I'd say claiming the desire to "wipe Israel" of the map would fall under the "bully" category quite well.
For a bit more check out Amnesty International.
:-) Barack Obama used to work for ACORN.
Nope. He did not. He might have some ties to them (they were in basically the same buisness as him, organization) but he was never an employee of them.
Notice: This post isn't saying anything positive or negative about Obama or ACORN, its just correcting facts.
they were ALREADY wiped off the map by the Arabs.
Wouldn't that be Babylonians?
That makes no sense. And isn't really applicable to much, even if it did. Sure, a lot of prejudice comes from bad experiences, but these experiences probably pale next to what we were raised with. And when it comes to the Middle East, I doubt that this plays any role whatsoever, barring the occasional antisemitic moron and anti-muslim/arab slob.
I, for example, have nothing against Jews or Arabs (or Muslims in general). I no more beef against there groups than I have against Christians, at least. I have met trash from all walks of life, and all cultures in about equal quantities. That said, I have major problems with Israel in general (Israel != Jews), I also have serious problems with many of the Muslim/Arab countries in the region (Iran/Syria/Lebenon/etc... != Muslim/Arabs). This, as obvious from my parentheticals, have nothing to do with ethnic groups or religions, but with the actions of governments. I am also quite fed up with the Government of the US, but most of my friends and family happen to be American (as am I).
Israel is an arrogant, human rights violating, violent bully, just like Iran. Israel might be a wee bit worse, since they are actively repressing and slaughtering their own citizens. This isn't saying Iran is much better, mind. If any country, run by Jews, or not, acted like Israel I would condemn their actions as well. Perhaps not quite as vocally, since Israel as a strangely strong voice in American politics, and has a huge and vocal lobby who is constantly busy trying to brand all dissent with them as racism. The Iranians, at least, don't have this.
You mean where the population is an order of magnitude smaller? Also places where the average temperature doesn't get very high, very often, and thus most people don't have air conditioning (damn liberals, and their lack of air conditioning).
Oh wait... your slandering people based on their differing opinions than your own... Sorry for the interruption.
Worse; the people vote for those who spend the most money of advertisements and publicists, meaning the people with the most money. These people generally got a lion-share of this money from lobbyists. Then these people, in turn, vote for things that serve the people who allowed them into office (not the people).
The problem then lies firmly at the feet of the voters. Basically, the average voter is a complete moron.
According to the list... These is a bunch of small islands, then Kuwait, then the US. So, of all the developed countries, or countries with a population above... say... 5 million, the US is the second fattest, behind Kuwait.
Outside of being around 7'5", no one can weigh 300lbs and be healthy. Attractiveness is generally correlated (in an evolutionary sense) with the health of our mates, therefore someone who is 300lbs, on the whole, will not be attractive. If that is attractive to you, sobeit, but it is more a fetish than normal.
Your average supermodel also falls into this category of "not healthy = not attractive", the people who find supermodels hot are the same people who think the airbrushed-to-the-point-where-it-might-as-well-be-fake Maxim models are hot (same for Playboy, sometimes I wonder if they stopped having actual women in them, and settle for 3D models and CGI). But then again these are the same people who probably love cartoon women. Its called "hyper sexuality" where you take normal "sexual organs" and over emphasize them.... Actually most run-way models fall into the "legal pedophile" mode, since they look like adolescents as far as their features go.
In the middle you, of course, have healthy women who may or not be attractive based on features other than weight (mostly symmetry, it turns out, which oddly, is another sign of health).
That said, if my girlfriend started to gain weight rapidly, I'd insist she go to a doctor, to make sure it isn't a medical issue. If it wasn't, I would tell her to watch her weight/behavior, since obesity that isn't based on glandular problems generally represents a personality problem or character flaw, and often a mental illness. If that failed I would dump her, since our lifestyles, and personalities, drifted apart. The weight, in this case, is nothing more than a symptom of deeper problems.
And yes, my girlfriend is 5'3, and no, she doesn't weight 90lbs.
Since this is not how our system works, the invisible hand spends half its time masturbating and the other half squashing people like ants.
Your words are like poetry to my ears... Thank you for that, if I had mod points you would have them, sir.
In other words, it's bullshit.
I didn't notice you actually backing up that statement with proof anywhere in your post... And no, "I don't like these people." doesn't count as proof, nor does "zomg socialism", since then you must prove how socialism is bad, or a failure (which you'll find it isn't).
Its like saying, and pardon my Godwin, "Hitler liked dogs, therefore dogs are evil.", obviously this is a fallacy, and more-so, dumb. Though I'd think that the "zomg socialism!" arguments are just as bad as the typical Godwin ones. X was bad, X liked Y, therefore X; is bad is just sloppy thinking, and doesn't really have any relevance on the utility or truth value of Y.
No, your opinion isn't fact.
As for being better, look up Chicago, heat wave, and old people.
It because Canada hasn't decided that the military is the single most important thing in the universe, over the health, and education of its citizens. Canada, dare I say, is somewhat sane. My fair country, on the other hand, is completely batshit crazy, and about as corrupt as many 3rd world dictatorships.
I always find the "socialized whatnot" debates to be hilarious. The reasoning is generally "But we are America, and we're #1, so anything we're currently doing is the best in the world!"... American Exceptionalism. Which basically is political and historical myopia. There are tons of countries doing much better than us, on just about every measurable metric. But being that they aren't America, they must be doing worse than us, because... well... we're #1.
Sadly, outside of our huge superfluous military, we're damn far from #1 in any valuable metric. By valuable metric I of course mean those criteria that directly effect the citizens of the US, such as health, mortality, and education. Hell, we're even not as wealthy (on a per capita basis) as most of the developed word any more.
But for some reason its a terrible thing to say "there is something TERRIBLY wrong here". All you get for saying that are shrill cries of "you hate America" and "socialism", by a bunch of morons who don't even know what socialism is. I haven't even quite grasped where the actual implied ad hominem lurks in being called a socialist yet. I've pissed off a lot of right-wingers by saying "yep." when called a socialist. Like I'm missing some terrible fact, or haven't gotten the memo that socialists eat babies. While all the Capitalists (aren't we all, like socialism and capitalism are opposed to each other), Randroids, Rightwingers, and Libertarians (in the capitalized sense) think that the solution is doing MORE of what put us in this place already. "So a little bit of poison made you sick, perhaps a shit-ton of it will cure you then!" This is just more myopia.
We're so blinded by flawed ideologies and unthinking nationalism that we can't even think that perhaps we are wrong.
Whats worse is that the right has decided that democracy is 100% wrong when it doesn't serve them. Hence them trying to make the term "liberal" a slander, when in fact a majority of the people has decided that it isn't, at least so far as to vote them into being the majority party in national politics.
We forgot that the government is here for us, the PEOPLE, not the corporations, not your wallet, not your silly religion-based morality, not your exclusive reading of what a "right is" and your psychic premonition of what the founders actually wanted (generally a religious, corporate state, it seems). The government is here to benefit me, and you. Not just you. The government should enable us as individuals, protect us, nurture us, and allow us to develop to the maximum of our abilities. No, they don't exist to make sure you make money at the expense of others, they actually were created to PROTECT us from that.
Sorry for the rant... American politics have been pissing me off lately (in a bipartisan way). Needed to vent.
Pretty much all of the leftist ideas being pushed currently on health care reform are little more than thinly disguised socialized medicine.
Odd... it looks to me like the government is forcing people to give money to corporate entities. This, at least in my opinion, isn't "socialized medicine", its flat out corporatism. Sure, the mythical "public option" gets a bit closer to it, but it still isn't really close to "socialism", at least not in the strange ultra-right-wing way of speaking, since there still is competition.
Can we please drop this argument now? IT ISN'T SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. I am your enemy, I'm a raging socialist lefty who wipes my ass with copies of Atlas Shrugged. If it was socialized medicine I would be FOR it. I am not, since its nothing but thinly veiled fascism (in the original definition of the term). If we must employ a socialism moniker, we can call it "corporate socialism".
Can we all at least be against it for the right reasons?
It's fine to eat prime rib and tira misu with some cheese-coated appetizer, but a coke, fries and grilled chicken sandwich from McDonalds is a sin?
I'm not rich, but I manage to eat prime, tiramisu and such from time to time. The difference here is the "time to time", a lot of people eat fast food crap as a staple of their diet, instead of an indulgence. I eat fast food around once a month (or less if I can help it), but some people eat it daily. Same with snack foods and soda. I might go months without drinking a single soda, but some people go through a six pack a day, or those obnoxious 100oz 7-11 tankers.
Its about moderation. Which, further, is about education. Eating healthy isn't much more expensive than eating badly, and generally it tastes much better. Go price healthy foods (not organic, but just plain healthy) over fatty, empty, foods, you'll find that there isn't much of a price difference. I can go to McDonalds for roughly the same price I can go to my local Pita/Gyro restaurant, one is somewhat good for you, the other isn't really food at all.
Its more of a stupid tax, which is something I'm fine with.
No, the universal version of "[citation needed]" is you said something that you expect other people to listen to, but supplied no evidence, or reason to believe you. The onus is on the presenter to provide some degree of evidence for their claims.
You stated something as a fact, but didn't me any reason to accept it as such.
Would you read an academic paper, or essay, which completely lacked sources and cites?
[citation needed]
Ahh... Infowars, probably the most trust worthy source that ever existed. I especially loved the "Obama is a zionist, muslim" one, oh.. and the "Truther" crap that they spread. If the things they generally espoused were true, I'd trust the government MORE, since they would be infinitely more competent than I view them as now.
I'm guessing that there IS some infliltration of these anarchist groups, this is obvious. But I severely doubt that the wackos are all "gubermint plants," barring actual, you know, evidence. Unless of course we say all the wackos in the Glenn Beck/Tea Party scene are also "gubermint plants" to make the right wing look inept as well. Which would be nice, since their making both extremes look silly, and thus it is a vast MODERATE conspiracy... Which, as a moderate, is pretty awesome.
I spent some time going to a very liberal college, and can tell you from experience that most protesters (of any cause) really have no clue. I remember one friend actually organizing and staging a protest at my college, who had very hard time actually articulating what they exactly were protesting. I'm guessing this is common, if not the norm. Watch some videos of people interviewing the "death panel" protesters some time, they have no bloody clue either, and I doubt that most people think that they were actually staged.
That said, to protest doesn't necessarily mean that you are dumb, but the dumb ones get the media play. As a rule, I think most protests are a waste of time, and only serve to cheapen actual arguments. If you have a point, it is more productive to coherently tell it to people (with evidence and reasoning), than it is to dress up in silly costumes, chant slogans, and cause property damage.
I loved the looks of horror in one of my Intro to Philosophy classes where the rules stated "write no more than x pages." This instruction, obviously, was followed by a chorus of "but how long must it be?!" by all the kids taking it merely as a general humanity (I was there for some catch up credits). As a person proofing the papers, the quality went up significantly. In courses that are no creative writing you should mostly be grading for the ability to get the point across clearly and concisely. If you can make me understand your idea in three pages, it is much better than doing the same in ten pages.
In one of my research methods classes, the teacher actually downgraded for adjectives and "colorful language." It was brilliant.
Hey! I was a humanities undergrad (philosophy), and had to bathe daily in statistics and scientific methodology. I'm not saying all humanities undergrads were in the same boat, but you still made a false generalization. Not all humanities people are rank morons, or completely uninformed. I think the morons are pretty well uniformly distributed throughout ALL disciplines.