These countries are run by people who look after their own people, rather than American economic interests, therefore they're undemocratic. Don't you watch Fox news?
And this kids is why you shouldn't grow up to be a marxist whore. You have to do crap like this, attempting to equate the US and Cuban system to make a case there is no real difference. Night and fricking day dude.
Yeah, Cuba would never spend half a century trying to overthrow governments all over the world that didn't accomodate its economic interests, and have a global terrorist organisation as a legitimate part of its government.
Raul Castro's government has relied in particular on a provision of the Cuban Criminal Code that allows the state to imprison individuals before they have committed a crime, on the suspicion that they might commit and offense in the future.
Of course, no-one in the glorious, free, capitalist US is ever arrested on the suspicion that they might commit a crime. Like that guy who wanted to shoot Obama in Denver...
Because the Cuban governmental monopoly on the tourism industry, corrupt politicians enriching themselves at the direct expense of the people, vast inequality between the nomenklatura and ordinary peasants, and forced labor in the sugarcane fields for schoolchildren is so much better.....
Yeah, Cuba is better than the countless democratic, capitalist third-world nations where free trade reigns. What was your point again?
These special license plates are a signifier for law enforcement that the person driving has been convicted multiple times of driving while intoxicated, and as such, may now be pulled over and checked at any time to verify they are not repeating the offense. I may be off on the rules, but that is the gist of it.
If they've been convicted multiple times, why are they allowed to drive at all?
The whole point of Internet conspiracy theorist nutjobs is that they cherry pick single facts which may actually be true, but then pair them up with a conclusion with no actual valid inference. It makes them look convincing whilst spouting complete bullshit.
For example, look at a picture of the 1969 moon landings: 1. The US flag is fluttering in the wind. 2. But there's no wind on the moon, it's a vacuum, so there's nothing to blow the flag. 3. Therefore, the moon landings must have actually been filmed on Earth.
Axiom 1 seems to be correct, and 2 is definitely correct and I infer 3, which seems logical, but it's complete shit. This is what deniers feed on. On Slashdot, you only need four fellow nutjobs to follow you around to give up +5 insightful, and lend your posts extra authority to casual browsers.
He is right that Greenland used to be warmer than it is today. However when he makes the massive leap of logic, that as temperature changes happen naturally, they cannot happen artificially, he has made an inference he has no right to. A pan of water can warm up if left in the sun. If I then put the pan on the cooker, is it a hoax to suggest the flames are making it boil?
But then, who am I to argue with someone who 'does satellite stuff'?
This has zero relevance to our basic understanding of the formation of the planets. The atmosphere is from some part of space. Whether it is from asteroids more recently than the late stages of the earths formation is kind of useless information.
Have I misread, or have I've just heard someone say that knowledge of the origin of our planet is 'useless information'?
On the other hand, I think/. might be overdoing it a bit regarding news on the subject.
If a few years back we could have an article every time WoW gained a subscriber, or every time someone at Google farted, or some pirate got busted, I think we can have an article when a particle physics record is broken.
Hell no, that can't be right. The purpose of the government is to uphold every citizen's inalienable rights; and it must be as small as it can be while remaining capable of fulfilling that purpose. No more, no less -- with emphasis on the "no more" bit.
1. Who decides what an inalienable right is? 2. Who decides the size or purpose of government if not the 51%? 3. A government being as small as possible is just your opinion. Who made you dictator?
And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?
The US government has extended hands to far worse regimes in the past. What makes the Iranian regime any worse than those South American genocidal military dictators who were best buddies with Reagan, and were given endless funding by the CIA?
Oh wait, Iran is less favourable to American business interests...
You're assuming that the CIA didn't know very well that Iraq had no WMDs, and that they don't know where Osama is. The CIA's presence in Iran includes inciting those riots last year.
I object to the fact that nearly half of this country pays no income tax while 5% of it pays half.
The economic tyranny is that 5% of the country has half the wealth in the first place. Libertarians would have you believe that the people who own the means of production create all the wealth, when in reality they're just stealing it, and whine like stuck pigs when the rest of society makes them give back merely half of what they've taken out.
Btw please don't talk about import tariffs as taking your labour. Protectionism like that is what allows so many Americans to make so much money. Those taxes are propping up your uncompetitive domestic businesses, allowing you to take even bigger slices of the pie you didn't bake.
By that libertarian logic, there can be no property at all, as in involves the government forcibly stopping anyone else from using it. In fact, in a true libertarian society, no-one owns anything except what they create out of thin air.
So a "right" to food means someone else has to grow it on their land and hand it over, either being paid with money that been taken from *other* productive members of the village or point blank stolen and handed over to the person asserting their "right".
Who gave them that land in the first place? Government. Government gave you the land, and if that land bears fruit, they can tell you how it's going to be distributed. Don't like it? Make your own land.
Weak-kneed members of the public will have to be kept away from the giant culture vats, where hideous amorphous flesh lumps, studded with electrodes, thrash and strain;
Can't be any more disgusting than the modern intensive farm where chickens are swimming in their own shit and disease-ridden pigs are injected with endless cocktails of drugs and hormones to keep them alive long enough to put into your hot dogs.
This vat-grown stuff will probably be far healthier.
So, if you make more junk, you get to destroy the environment for anyone else? That's pretty strange logic. It's ok that I'm dumping chemicals in your water table, because I'm making a really big TV. It's ok that I'm acidifying the seas, because I'm doing it to make myself a really expensive SUV.
Perhaps you should develop an economy that isn't based on pollution. If you can't do that, then maybe your capitalist model is flawed.
If you're so concerned about the poor then you should be trying to increase trade not reduce it. You should also support cuts in taxes, the more money people can keep the more they are likely to buy and invest thus creating jobs.
Tax cuts only increase government debt, unless they accompany government spending reductions, which would put millions out of work and wreck the economy.
It doesn't usually work like that. If anything, you end up with one household with both parents working, and another household with no-one working. Unless we're all supposed to get divorced and re-married as the economy changes. Then there's cost of living. As long as two people in one household are working, then it keeps up the cost of living so both people in the other household have to work, otherwise they can't afford a mortgage.
Your impossible civilisation might be possible in a command economy, whereby the state could say who was going to work and who wasn't, or make people job share, but in free market capitalism it'll never happen. The first people to do it would be shafted as they couldn't afford the cost of living, it'd need the whole of Western society to do it at once.
Like New Labour Obama is obsessed with "Equality for all"
New Labour don't believe in equality for all.
That's why they send their kids to private schools, introduce tuition fees, and degrade state schools so only the priviledged can get a decent education.
That's why Tony Blair built a property portfolio worth tens of millions, whilst blocking the creation of new houses for the rest of us.
The big problem is really obvious. It's the quality of teachers.
Nope. You just want it to be that way, because you've been conditioned to hate unions. The actual difference is cultural attitude to education. Asians exceed academically, not because of a lack of unions, but because the parents give a shit about their children's education, and make the children care about their education.
That is the main difference between East Asia and the West. It's nothing to do with teacher quality, curricula, budgets, or unions. It's why Asian students succeed even in crappy Western schools.
Rewarding teachers based on performance just leads to teaching to the test, and abandoning/excluding struggling kids. This is another great trick of private schools, they advertise how many of their kids get into college, because they've thrown out all the ones who might not get into college, or even want to go. Government schools don't have that priviledge, they have to teach everyone.
Look at most charter schools. They flourish. Why?
Selection bias. Blaming the teachers is like blaming the water when the horse isn't thirsty.
Slashdot Mirror
These countries are run by people who look after their own people, rather than American economic interests, therefore they're undemocratic. Don't you watch Fox news?
Yeah, Cuba would never spend half a century trying to overthrow governments all over the world that didn't accomodate its economic interests, and have a global terrorist organisation as a legitimate part of its government.
Of course, no-one in the glorious, free, capitalist US is ever arrested on the suspicion that they might commit a crime. Like that guy who wanted to shoot Obama in Denver...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_burton
Yeah, Cuba is better than the countless democratic, capitalist third-world nations where free trade reigns. What was your point again?
What if it were not for phones, the fatality rates would have gone down even further? Your have a poor grasp of logic.
If they've been convicted multiple times, why are they allowed to drive at all?
Hell, why are they even out of prison?
The whole point of Internet conspiracy theorist nutjobs is that they cherry pick single facts which may actually be true, but then pair them up with a conclusion with no actual valid inference. It makes them look convincing whilst spouting complete bullshit.
For example, look at a picture of the 1969 moon landings:
1. The US flag is fluttering in the wind.
2. But there's no wind on the moon, it's a vacuum, so there's nothing to blow the flag.
3. Therefore, the moon landings must have actually been filmed on Earth.
Axiom 1 seems to be correct, and 2 is definitely correct and I infer 3, which seems logical, but it's complete shit. This is what deniers feed on. On Slashdot, you only need four fellow nutjobs to follow you around to give up +5 insightful, and lend your posts extra authority to casual browsers.
He is right that Greenland used to be warmer than it is today. However when he makes the massive leap of logic, that as temperature changes happen naturally, they cannot happen artificially, he has made an inference he has no right to. A pan of water can warm up if left in the sun. If I then put the pan on the cooker, is it a hoax to suggest the flames are making it boil?
But then, who am I to argue with someone who 'does satellite stuff'?
Have I misread, or have I've just heard someone say that knowledge of the origin of our planet is 'useless information'?
If a few years back we could have an article every time WoW gained a subscriber, or every time someone at Google farted, or some pirate got busted, I think we can have an article when a particle physics record is broken.
1. Who decides what an inalienable right is?
2. Who decides the size or purpose of government if not the 51%?
3. A government being as small as possible is just your opinion. Who made you dictator?
By terrorist organisations, you mean like the Contras, the IRA and the Taleban?
Why is supporting terrorism only a problem when someone else is doing it?
The US government has extended hands to far worse regimes in the past. What makes the Iranian regime any worse than those South American genocidal military dictators who were best buddies with Reagan, and were given endless funding by the CIA?
Oh wait, Iran is less favourable to American business interests...
You're assuming that the CIA didn't know very well that Iraq had no WMDs, and that they don't know where Osama is. The CIA's presence in Iran includes inciting those riots last year.
Maybe $200 a month isn't a lot when you're actually paying for content. You know, like licencing all that music. Internet ad revenue is pitiful.
The economic tyranny is that 5% of the country has half the wealth in the first place. Libertarians would have you believe that the people who own the means of production create all the wealth, when in reality they're just stealing it, and whine like stuck pigs when the rest of society makes them give back merely half of what they've taken out.
Btw please don't talk about import tariffs as taking your labour. Protectionism like that is what allows so many Americans to make so much money. Those taxes are propping up your uncompetitive domestic businesses, allowing you to take even bigger slices of the pie you didn't bake.
By that libertarian logic, there can be no property at all, as in involves the government forcibly stopping anyone else from using it. In fact, in a true libertarian society, no-one owns anything except what they create out of thin air.
Who gave them that land in the first place? Government. Government gave you the land, and if that land bears fruit, they can tell you how it's going to be distributed. Don't like it? Make your own land.
Would the warranty cover yeast infections?
Can't be any more disgusting than the modern intensive farm where chickens are swimming in their own shit and disease-ridden pigs are injected with endless cocktails of drugs and hormones to keep them alive long enough to put into your hot dogs.
This vat-grown stuff will probably be far healthier.
So, if you make more junk, you get to destroy the environment for anyone else? That's pretty strange logic. It's ok that I'm dumping chemicals in your water table, because I'm making a really big TV. It's ok that I'm acidifying the seas, because I'm doing it to make myself a really expensive SUV.
Perhaps you should develop an economy that isn't based on pollution. If you can't do that, then maybe your capitalist model is flawed.
Great, just don't complain when you lose your income when the economy collapses.
There's a reason real people don't listen to libertarians. They're economically illiterate.
Tax cuts only increase government debt, unless they accompany government spending reductions, which would put millions out of work and wreck the economy.
It doesn't usually work like that. If anything, you end up with one household with both parents working, and another household with no-one working. Unless we're all supposed to get divorced and re-married as the economy changes. Then there's cost of living. As long as two people in one household are working, then it keeps up the cost of living so both people in the other household have to work, otherwise they can't afford a mortgage.
Your impossible civilisation might be possible in a command economy, whereby the state could say who was going to work and who wasn't, or make people job share, but in free market capitalism it'll never happen. The first people to do it would be shafted as they couldn't afford the cost of living, it'd need the whole of Western society to do it at once.
New Labour don't believe in equality for all.
That's why they send their kids to private schools, introduce tuition fees, and degrade state schools so only the priviledged can get a decent education.
That's why Tony Blair built a property portfolio worth tens of millions, whilst blocking the creation of new houses for the rest of us.
Nope. You just want it to be that way, because you've been conditioned to hate unions. The actual difference is cultural attitude to education. Asians exceed academically, not because of a lack of unions, but because the parents give a shit about their children's education, and make the children care about their education.
That is the main difference between East Asia and the West. It's nothing to do with teacher quality, curricula, budgets, or unions. It's why Asian students succeed even in crappy Western schools.
Rewarding teachers based on performance just leads to teaching to the test, and abandoning/excluding struggling kids. This is another great trick of private schools, they advertise how many of their kids get into college, because they've thrown out all the ones who might not get into college, or even want to go. Government schools don't have that priviledge, they have to teach everyone.
Selection bias. Blaming the teachers is like blaming the water when the horse isn't thirsty.