I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
So what? I don't expect everything to last forever. Read something else and move on. If the WSJ lost a bunch of readership, then it wouldn't matter that it has slid so much.
By only running three or four hours of news every day, they don't have to sensationalize news in-general just to survive, the bulk of their other programming does that for them.
Well, that and their ability to regenerate crime sprees on the fly. I've seen a number of such stations which don't go beyond reading the local crime blotter and cute pet stories.
But that is a considerable part of the reason we don't normally consider gold to be a pollutant. Dose makes the poison and there just isn't a lot of dose here.
Well, I've been READing and UNDERSTANDing you and I have yet to see an actual fact backing your assertion that the tax is regressive. If we actually look at the proposed mechanics of the tax, it's a a flat tax on everything past a certain base amount. That right there makes it slightly progressive. And that's pretty much it.
It doesn't help that so many of Rand Paul's opposition are twirling their well-oiled mustaches like a Ayn Rand cartoonish villain.If you're a plug in replacement for a "looter" in Atlas Shrugged, then Ayn Rand's stilted writing and logic is the least of your troubles.
There's just no way a weak, decentralized govt can stand up against a modern corporation.
Except by taking their stuff or putting people in jail, of course. The thing missing in your argument is the vast power differential between even a "weak, decentralized" government and a corporation.
It just doesn't matter to us if the jackboot in our v necks is public or private, so we'll take our chances with the govt and try to hang onto it..
Sure, it does. A business's power is far easier to break. Just destroy or take their capital or stop buying their stuff, then they stop making a profit. That jackboot goes away when the business can no longer pay for it. For better or worse a small group of people can considerably harm even a large business, if they target it with effective sabotage or high profile bad publicity.
I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do
Sure, they do. But over the lifespan of the US the "moderation" usually favors the wealthy and connected. It's only when the public gets particularly outraged that the moderation has anything to do with creating a better society.
Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK, and actually harm this country, all the while lying through their teeth about the disasters they've created. Clinton had to work to clean up after Reagan (Bush Sr. started that cleanup, and the GOP threw him out), and Obama has had to work to clean up from Bush Jr. Red states are leeches off the federal coffers, while blue states have to dole out money to help the sad sack red states who apparently don't have bootstraps of their own. All the while republican politicians lie like bitches so they can HAVE POWER.... instead of actually govern the country for the betterment of everyone.
The obvious rebuttal is twofold. First, one would expect in a democracy for those who don't desire government action in their lives to require a larger bribe than those who do. It's standard supply and demand in a democracy.
Second, where is the money going? Just because, say, West Virginia gets money for a high tech emergency command center or money to back bonds for an interstate (hypothetical examples) doesn't mean that the money goes to West Virginia networking equipment manufacturers or the fees for managing the sale of said bonds go to West Virginia brokers. There's a lot of blue state participation in red state spending.
I call your bluff here. By all means, cut funding to those disrespectful, slothful red states. Of course, your "moderation of society" will be cut in retaliation. That's win-win for me.
I think the previous poster was thinking of stuff like the "nuclear option", the blocking of filibustering (like what Paul did just now) on a variety of US Senate activities. That wasn't done by the "right wing" though admittedly they were blamed for it.
Except for the obvious bit about not actually being regressive. The actual regressive tax problem I see with a flat tax is that they can't permanently eliminate tax loophole creation. That's what creates localized regressive tax situations today.
Funny, how people are more concerned about hypocrisy, real and imagined, than about genuine evil. Perhaps you ought to look into what it takes to be an elected politician. The key thing for purposes of considering your empty accusations of hypocrisy is that his job is to represent the interests of his constituents, which aren't mostly not libertarian in viewpoint, not merely advocate a particular ideology with pure consistency.
I notice that no one bothers to point out the hypocrisy of the vast majority of US politicians here. Somehow Rand's hypocrisy is far more significant than the hypocrisy of a Reid or Shelby, to name a couple which I've noticed. I think it's a terrible idea to leave politics to the completely venal, but this sort of attitude remains strangely commonplace.
One would have to be a fool to eschew a strong libertarian (or whatever philosophical traits one deems desirable) candidate on the basis that he isn't ideologically pure while ignoring that he has a job that demands a lot of things over ideological purity. Especially when his supposed hypocrisy is not notable compared to background noise of the group he is part of.
The reality being that most of China has no knowledge or approval of these things, and punishing them is silly. And the hypocrisy is that there are plenty of US agents engaging in espionage.
That's good. I'd hate to be punished for all the stuff my government is doing supposedly in my name.
I think it makes the most sense to use a central bank and government. It has its downsides, I will not deny that, but the downsides for all of the private methods are worse.
Except when they aren't, of course. Argentina sets a low bar.
Can you think of *ANY* that are remotely feasible on matters that a 911 emergency response team would be dispatched to?
Absolutely, Joe Paranoid is sure the government is listening in on his conversations, so he gets a NSI phone to protect himself from Big Brother. Later he sees a bad pile up on the highway and tries to phone it in.
Why would someone reporting that somebody is having a heart attack be less likely to report it if they knew that their identity was more likely known?
Because they're worried about picking up a fine like their buddy, Thad did. Thad was just asking where the ABC store was. If they'll fine you for that, who knows what else they'll fine you for.
That's been my point all along. You can't really crack down on casual 911 abuse, except in egregious cases, because otherwise you scare people away from legitimate use. You don't want any such considerations getting in the way of someone's life.
While actually holding people accountable, even if you don't necessarily always issue the fine, at least to some extent diminishes the number of abuses that would otherwise certainly occur.
But it would create other problems. And I'm just not seeing here a sufficient reason to block NSI phones unless there really is a lot of abuse coming from these phones. Most people are complaining about things like butt-dialing or people trying to solve mundane, non-emergency problems which is not exclusive to these phones.
The aforementioned post suggested that with the existence of such fines, people may actually hesitate to call 911 in the event that they believed someone was having a heart attack, so yes... you did imply it.
Yes, I still believe that. And yes, I don't believe that that extends to:
And somehow *I'm* just engaging in rationalization and trying to generalize a worst case scenario as common?
Moving on, you still miss the point. Sure, currently there are fines and such, but almost no one triggers them, even on phones where they can be traced. If you shift to a regime where you try to enforce that sort of rule, then the kind of idiots who make frivolous 911 calls in the first place will start hearing about people who have to pay the fine, but either won't hear or won't understand the context behind the fine. That situation is a disincentive to call 911 in an actual emergency. Hence, my concern about prioritizing enforcing the rules over getting emergencies reported.
I notice that the real problem seems to be lack of funding of emergency services rather than any actual problem with nuisance calls. That may be combined with an ulterior motive from the US federal authorities to get rid of NSI phones (or whatever they're actually called).
Are you, perhaps, unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "ideology" or is your reading comprehension just poor in general?
One could ask the same of you. Keep in mind that this thread started because the original post asked what genocide and such has been done in the name of science? That doesn't imply that actual science need occur in the commission of the atrocities in question.
All three. Hence, why they were mentioned as examples. I fear you may be thoroughly corrupted by bourgeoisie science and simply be unable to understand the scientific proof that has been laid out in front of you!
Slashdot Mirror
How many proportionately sized particles (say matchhead sized) in your own gut at any time would also be underwhelming?
10-20. It's probably TMI, but I have more than that in my gut right now.
It's probably circular logic, like the guy hurt himself by getting busted.
I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
So what? I don't expect everything to last forever. Read something else and move on. If the WSJ lost a bunch of readership, then it wouldn't matter that it has slid so much.
By only running three or four hours of news every day, they don't have to sensationalize news in-general just to survive, the bulk of their other programming does that for them.
Well, that and their ability to regenerate crime sprees on the fly. I've seen a number of such stations which don't go beyond reading the local crime blotter and cute pet stories.
Even small to medium sized fish are found to have 10-20 beads in their digestive tract at any given time.
Which is a remarkably underwhelming number.
But that is a considerable part of the reason we don't normally consider gold to be a pollutant. Dose makes the poison and there just isn't a lot of dose here.
Even assuming that it's a dinner plate sized amount of pollution, over two decades, you are looking at 7300 dinner plates.
LOL. That's a lot of unintentional comedy right there, 7300 plates worth. I guess the California government is good for something.
Well, I've been READing and UNDERSTANDing you and I have yet to see an actual fact backing your assertion that the tax is regressive. If we actually look at the proposed mechanics of the tax, it's a a flat tax on everything past a certain base amount. That right there makes it slightly progressive. And that's pretty much it.
It doesn't help that so many of Rand Paul's opposition are twirling their well-oiled mustaches like a Ayn Rand cartoonish villain.If you're a plug in replacement for a "looter" in Atlas Shrugged, then Ayn Rand's stilted writing and logic is the least of your troubles.
There's just no way a weak, decentralized govt can stand up against a modern corporation.
Except by taking their stuff or putting people in jail, of course. The thing missing in your argument is the vast power differential between even a "weak, decentralized" government and a corporation.
It just doesn't matter to us if the jackboot in our v necks is public or private, so we'll take our chances with the govt and try to hang onto it..
Sure, it does. A business's power is far easier to break. Just destroy or take their capital or stop buying their stuff, then they stop making a profit. That jackboot goes away when the business can no longer pay for it. For better or worse a small group of people can considerably harm even a large business, if they target it with effective sabotage or high profile bad publicity.
I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do
Sure, they do. But over the lifespan of the US the "moderation" usually favors the wealthy and connected. It's only when the public gets particularly outraged that the moderation has anything to do with creating a better society.
Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK, and actually harm this country, all the while lying through their teeth about the disasters they've created. Clinton had to work to clean up after Reagan (Bush Sr. started that cleanup, and the GOP threw him out), and Obama has had to work to clean up from Bush Jr. Red states are leeches off the federal coffers, while blue states have to dole out money to help the sad sack red states who apparently don't have bootstraps of their own. All the while republican politicians lie like bitches so they can HAVE POWER.... instead of actually govern the country for the betterment of everyone.
The obvious rebuttal is twofold. First, one would expect in a democracy for those who don't desire government action in their lives to require a larger bribe than those who do. It's standard supply and demand in a democracy.
Second, where is the money going? Just because, say, West Virginia gets money for a high tech emergency command center or money to back bonds for an interstate (hypothetical examples) doesn't mean that the money goes to West Virginia networking equipment manufacturers or the fees for managing the sale of said bonds go to West Virginia brokers. There's a lot of blue state participation in red state spending.
I call your bluff here. By all means, cut funding to those disrespectful, slothful red states. Of course, your "moderation of society" will be cut in retaliation. That's win-win for me.
I think the previous poster was thinking of stuff like the "nuclear option", the blocking of filibustering (like what Paul did just now) on a variety of US Senate activities. That wasn't done by the "right wing" though admittedly they were blamed for it.
Except for the obvious bit about not actually being regressive. The actual regressive tax problem I see with a flat tax is that they can't permanently eliminate tax loophole creation. That's what creates localized regressive tax situations today.
Funny, how people are more concerned about hypocrisy, real and imagined, than about genuine evil. Perhaps you ought to look into what it takes to be an elected politician. The key thing for purposes of considering your empty accusations of hypocrisy is that his job is to represent the interests of his constituents, which aren't mostly not libertarian in viewpoint, not merely advocate a particular ideology with pure consistency.
I notice that no one bothers to point out the hypocrisy of the vast majority of US politicians here. Somehow Rand's hypocrisy is far more significant than the hypocrisy of a Reid or Shelby, to name a couple which I've noticed. I think it's a terrible idea to leave politics to the completely venal, but this sort of attitude remains strangely commonplace.
One would have to be a fool to eschew a strong libertarian (or whatever philosophical traits one deems desirable) candidate on the basis that he isn't ideologically pure while ignoring that he has a job that demands a lot of things over ideological purity. Especially when his supposed hypocrisy is not notable compared to background noise of the group he is part of.
Are you trying to promote Paul or bad mouth him? If you think libertarians are crazy, you ought to see their critics, amirite?
The reality being that most of China has no knowledge or approval of these things, and punishing them is silly. And the hypocrisy is that there are plenty of US agents engaging in espionage.
That's good. I'd hate to be punished for all the stuff my government is doing supposedly in my name.
I think it makes the most sense to use a central bank and government. It has its downsides, I will not deny that, but the downsides for all of the private methods are worse.
Except when they aren't, of course. Argentina sets a low bar.
I just read the AC comment and get your point about "rationalization" and such now. I think they were unfair to you.
Can you think of *ANY* that are remotely feasible on matters that a 911 emergency response team would be dispatched to?
Absolutely, Joe Paranoid is sure the government is listening in on his conversations, so he gets a NSI phone to protect himself from Big Brother. Later he sees a bad pile up on the highway and tries to phone it in.
Why would someone reporting that somebody is having a heart attack be less likely to report it if they knew that their identity was more likely known?
Because they're worried about picking up a fine like their buddy, Thad did. Thad was just asking where the ABC store was. If they'll fine you for that, who knows what else they'll fine you for.
That's been my point all along. You can't really crack down on casual 911 abuse, except in egregious cases, because otherwise you scare people away from legitimate use. You don't want any such considerations getting in the way of someone's life.
While actually holding people accountable, even if you don't necessarily always issue the fine, at least to some extent diminishes the number of abuses that would otherwise certainly occur.
But it would create other problems. And I'm just not seeing here a sufficient reason to block NSI phones unless there really is a lot of abuse coming from these phones. Most people are complaining about things like butt-dialing or people trying to solve mundane, non-emergency problems which is not exclusive to these phones.
The aforementioned post suggested that with the existence of such fines, people may actually hesitate to call 911 in the event that they believed someone was having a heart attack, so yes... you did imply it.
Yes, I still believe that. And yes, I don't believe that that extends to:
And somehow *I'm* just engaging in rationalization and trying to generalize a worst case scenario as common?
Moving on, you still miss the point. Sure, currently there are fines and such, but almost no one triggers them, even on phones where they can be traced. If you shift to a regime where you try to enforce that sort of rule, then the kind of idiots who make frivolous 911 calls in the first place will start hearing about people who have to pay the fine, but either won't hear or won't understand the context behind the fine. That situation is a disincentive to call 911 in an actual emergency. Hence, my concern about prioritizing enforcing the rules over getting emergencies reported.
I notice that the real problem seems to be lack of funding of emergency services rather than any actual problem with nuisance calls. That may be combined with an ulterior motive from the US federal authorities to get rid of NSI phones (or whatever they're actually called).
And somehow *I'm* just engaging in rationalization and trying to generalize a worst case scenario as common?
I have to wonder upon reading this, if you really read what I posted. I haven't said or implied that.
Any plan that depends on idiots behaving themselves is even dumber than the idiots because we are never going to run out of idiots.
What you're describing is the co-opting of science to support a malicious philosophy.
In other words, exactly what the earlier poster was claiming they never heard of before.
This is why science is guided by ethics
Except when it isn't, of course.
Are you, perhaps, unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "ideology" or is your reading comprehension just poor in general?
One could ask the same of you. Keep in mind that this thread started because the original post asked what genocide and such has been done in the name of science? That doesn't imply that actual science need occur in the commission of the atrocities in question.
All three. Hence, why they were mentioned as examples. I fear you may be thoroughly corrupted by bourgeoisie science and simply be unable to understand the scientific proof that has been laid out in front of you!