Thank you for your nice advertisement. No seriously. Why post a story to Slashdot about your own product or service? That is what the millions of Slashdotters around the net are for. It's hard enough for one of us to get a story posted... now we have to compete with the source?
You know, I tend to agree. If he wants to get his story posted to Slashdot, he shouldn't submit it here. He should do what everyone else does. Send his story to Roland Piquepaille. Roland will then be the person to merely copy all of the inforamation, add no useful points or tips, and submit the information to Slashdot via his own blog.
Come on People, don't you know the Standard Operating Procedure around here?
I agree. But some of President Bush's programs seem more classically liberal in nature than following the ideal of "personal responsibility".
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Hmm. Equality of opportunity. I found an interesting article that argues not for Equality of Opportunity, but for Freedom
of Opportunity. By using the phrase Equality of Opportunity your are assuming that someone (the government, I presume?) will be defining what is "equal".
Even so, I can't just trust a random web site from someone who may be more libertarian than conservative. So, with some reservations, I'll give you the equality of opportunity line as a "conservative value".
Conservatives believe in strong foreign policy and in not compromising national sovereignty.
And exactly how does that differ from whata "liberal" believes?
Conservatives believe that small business is key to a healthy economy,
OK. But again, is that "conservative value"? That's just basic economics. It is accepted that small business provides most of the jobs in this country. How can that be a "conservative value"?
and that the best way to attain prosperity is to cut taxes,
While there have been economic arguments in favor of tax cuts, I still do not understand how those tax cuts work in balance with huge budget deficits. Under budget deficits, someone has to pay, eventually. And, making our children pay is not a "conservative value".
and the best way out of a revenue shortfall is to grow our way out by stimulating the economy.
I would disagree that is a conservative value. Why? here
and here. Also, AFAIK, the first President to try to spend his way out of an economic downturn was FDR. Not exactly a conservative icon.
She already IS on a rocket... That I know very well... huhuhuhuhuuhu....
Hey, thanks! Less work for me! After you are finished, can you go in the back yard and fix the fence? I'm busy trying to overcome my video game addiction.
That's not a conservative value. That's a libertarian value. Be careful not to confuse them.
Well, I actually gave you two mistated "conservative" values in one (my fault). Government should be limited in its scope (that is what I meant to say) and it should spend within its means. If I rephrase the first value to "government should be limited in its scope", do you agree with the notion that it a conservative value? The Heritage Foundation ran this article a few months ago on why the scope of government should be limited. Personally, I would consider Heritage to be a conservative organization, not libertarian. Even after rephrasing my statement, I don't believe the President has been for limiting the scope of government. In fact, he has been expanding it at a very high rate. For the second value (spending within it's means) I imagine that you are in favor of that.
The alternative is to not cut taxes and spend millions on social programs. Abolishing welfare is not something we have the political will as a country to do right now.
It sounds like you agree with the idea that conservatives have the value "that government should not spend money on social programs". But, you are pretty much giving up and saying "Oh, we don't have the political will to cut social programs." Note that the Republicans have been in Congressional power now (off and on) for quite a few years. What is preventing them from passing reductions in social programs? Personally, the conservatives of this country should be blaming the Republican leadership for their failure to fulfill a core conservative value.
Individually, we now have few rights than we have ever had. That's blatantly false.
Ok. Maybe a bad case of hyperbole. I am at work and I shouldn't type long postings (such as this one). Civil Liberties are under a greater threat today than they have been in a long time (FDR was guilty of a few excesses in this manner during World War II -- and if I had been alive at that time, I would have questioned his logic).
We subsidize farmers because we like cheap food.
I Disagree. We subsidize farmers because we are afraid of the competition from overseas. And, your argument is contradictory. A subsidy means your tax dollars are supporting a higher cost in food.
And if you'll recall Bush lifted the steel import tariffs.
He only lifted the Steel Tariffs after the Europeans threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs on some of our farm goods. True conservatives would have placed trust in free trade.
As for the airlines, what would you have done? Let the industry collapse in the wake of 9/11?
Why not? There are airlines (Southwest) that have remained profitable throughout the airline downturn. True conservatives would separate the "wheat from the chaff". Note that I am a frequent flier. I fly USAirways every week to my client. So, the shutdown of an airline would have a major impact on my life. But, that shutdown would be short-lived.
I'll reply to your personal definition of a conservative later. I have to go earn a living for a few more hours today.
These steps can "privatize" social security without any added beuracracy, legislation, and little cost.
Great. Except I am confused over the "little cost" line. If we give someone a savings bond, then there is a cost. It may be hidden somehow by being a bond (and maybe you can explain it to me), but a bond still has some cost somewhere along the way. Note that it is pretty likely the government is already paying low interest rates on it's debt (the government refinances its debt the same way we all re-finance our mortgages). So, you wouldn't be saving that much money on "lower interest debt". Also, I'm not sure about this, but I think your plan would result in a very large increase in interest rates.
Can you provide a link either verifying my thought or explaining how the bonds would have lower costs?
Do you even know what the word "conservative" means? Can you even name three conservative values?
I don't know about the OP, but I can make three suggestions (yes, this entire discussion may be off-topic). Note that your opinion of a conservative value may differ from mine (or anyone elses). If I were to suggest three conservative values, I would suggest the following (in no particular order):
Fiscal: Government should only spend on those key areas where it is required (National Defense, for example), and it should spend within its means.
Individual: Government's power over the individual should be limited.
Economic: Government should limit it's involvement in economic activity. It should try to stay out of the way of business, as much as possible.
Now, if we can agree that those are conservative values, George W. Bush's policies have all been in direct opposition to the above. Fiscally, he cuts taxes, but then spends millions on social programs. Individually, we now have few rights than we have ever had. Economically, the President has subsidized thousands of individuals and companies that should have gone out of business (from Farmers to the Steel Industry to Airlines).
Note that I am not saying John Kerry is a strong leader, I am only questioning how President Bush can be considered a conservative, at least by my three suggested definitions above.
There was a line in an old Sopranos Episode that described Godfather Part Three the best (this is not a quote, it's a slight paraphrase -- if someone has the exact quote, please feel free to correct it): "'Three was good, too, it's just misunderstood.'"
That was the episode where Christopher was meeting a famous rap star for the first time. In the end, Chris got in the middle of a battle between the rap star and Tony over the ownership rights to some oldies music (short paraphrase of that episode, as well).
don't tell me that my opinion that Star Wars is not a big deal in the film history makes me a troll
I wouldn't worry about that happening. All the moderators used their points to rate my posts 'Overrated'. By the time they read your post, they'll be out of points.:)
I agree. What is this Han/Greedo thing? I only remember where Michael shoots first.
Michael gets frisked by Sollozzo, goes into the bathroom and gets the gun behind the toilet. Then, he walks out of the bathroom, whacks the police captain and Sollozzo. He stands up, drops the gun on the floor and walks quickly to the door, where he is picked up by a car.
polygamy, incest, bestiality-based marriages should not be allowed. If people would argue that the government should not have its nose in marriage AT ALL (i.e., strike every law concerning marriage from the books, refuse to hear ANY divorce settlement case, etc.), I would find such an argument much more persuasive, perhaps even acceptable for public policy
Interesting point of view. And, I can sort of understand your point of view. I don't agree with it, of course. But it is an interesting argument. IMHO, the weakness in your argument is that you are comparing a polygamy, incest and bestiality with homosexuality. They are not the same.
A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two consenting adults. In polygamous relationships, the idea is that everyone agrees to this relationshiop, but one of the problems is that, eventually, the relationship ends up being abusive.
In an abusive relationship, there is no agreement between consenting adults.
That is the same with incestuous and bestiality. In both types of relationships, there usually is no agreement. One party is being forced into the situation.
Follow the threads to get some ideas of how other peoples' marriages affect everyone else
Well, I did follow the links. And, I must be missing the point. I read both and I saw a couple of replies to those posts that appeared to refute the original arguments. Oh well. I am prepared to punt. It appears we are going to disagree on this forever.
Secondly, why should being in love with someone have anything to do with this?
Woops. I fogot to reply to this. Sorry.
You do have a point. So, let us say two gay men want to get married for reasons other than love. Why would you be opposed to it? I mean, if you aren't opposed to heterosexuals getting married for reasons not related to love, then you have no reason to be opposed to gays being married for non-emotional reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this a story? Is there a company in ANY industry (from Steel to Cars to Lumber to Candy) that is not targeting the Chinese Market?
You know, I tend to agree. If he wants to get his story posted to Slashdot, he shouldn't submit it here. He should do what everyone else does. Send his story to Roland Piquepaille. Roland will then be the person to merely copy all of the inforamation, add no useful points or tips, and submit the information to Slashdot via his own blog.
Come on People, don't you know the Standard Operating Procedure around here?
Roland PiquepailleI am now finished with work.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility.I agree. But some of President Bush's programs seem more classically liberal in nature than following the ideal of "personal responsibility".
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.Hmm. Equality of opportunity. I found an interesting article that argues not for Equality of Opportunity, but for Freedom of Opportunity. By using the phrase Equality of Opportunity your are assuming that someone (the government, I presume?) will be defining what is "equal".
Even so, I can't just trust a random web site from someone who may be more libertarian than conservative. So, with some reservations, I'll give you the equality of opportunity line as a "conservative value".
Conservatives believe in strong foreign policy and in not compromising national sovereignty.And exactly how does that differ from what a "liberal" believes?
Conservatives believe that small business is key to a healthy economy,OK. But again, is that "conservative value"? That's just basic economics. It is accepted that small business provides most of the jobs in this country. How can that be a "conservative value"?
and that the best way to attain prosperity is to cut taxes,While there have been economic arguments in favor of tax cuts, I still do not understand how those tax cuts work in balance with huge budget deficits. Under budget deficits, someone has to pay, eventually. And, making our children pay is not a "conservative value".
and the best way out of a revenue shortfall is to grow our way out by stimulating the economy.I would disagree that is a conservative value. Why? here and here. Also, AFAIK, the first President to try to spend his way out of an economic downturn was FDR. Not exactly a conservative icon.
Hey, thanks! Less work for me! After you are finished, can you go in the back yard and fix the fence? I'm busy trying to overcome my video game addiction.
Hey, can I put my wife on that rocket?
How Troo. I lernt so much frum IM'ing my frends. TTL! LOL!
...he says as he starts pumping shotgun shells into yet another Martian zombie.
Well, I actually gave you two mistated "conservative" values in one (my fault). Government should be limited in its scope (that is what I meant to say) and it should spend within its means. If I rephrase the first value to "government should be limited in its scope", do you agree with the notion that it a conservative value? The Heritage Foundation ran this article a few months ago on why the scope of government should be limited. Personally, I would consider Heritage to be a conservative organization, not libertarian. Even after rephrasing my statement, I don't believe the President has been for limiting the scope of government. In fact, he has been expanding it at a very high rate. For the second value (spending within it's means) I imagine that you are in favor of that.
The alternative is to not cut taxes and spend millions on social programs. Abolishing welfare is not something we have the political will as a country to do right now.
It sounds like you agree with the idea that conservatives have the value "that government should not spend money on social programs". But, you are pretty much giving up and saying "Oh, we don't have the political will to cut social programs." Note that the Republicans have been in Congressional power now (off and on) for quite a few years. What is preventing them from passing reductions in social programs? Personally, the conservatives of this country should be blaming the Republican leadership for their failure to fulfill a core conservative value.
Individually, we now have few rights than we have ever had. That's blatantly false.
Ok. Maybe a bad case of hyperbole. I am at work and I shouldn't type long postings (such as this one). Civil Liberties are under a greater threat today than they have been in a long time (FDR was guilty of a few excesses in this manner during World War II -- and if I had been alive at that time, I would have questioned his logic).
We subsidize farmers because we like cheap food.
I Disagree. We subsidize farmers because we are afraid of the competition from overseas. And, your argument is contradictory. A subsidy means your tax dollars are supporting a higher cost in food.
And if you'll recall Bush lifted the steel import tariffs.
He only lifted the Steel Tariffs after the Europeans threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs on some of our farm goods. True conservatives would have placed trust in free trade.
As for the airlines, what would you have done? Let the industry collapse in the wake of 9/11?
Why not? There are airlines (Southwest) that have remained profitable throughout the airline downturn. True conservatives would separate the "wheat from the chaff". Note that I am a frequent flier. I fly USAirways every week to my client. So, the shutdown of an airline would have a major impact on my life. But, that shutdown would be short-lived.
I'll reply to your personal definition of a conservative later. I have to go earn a living for a few more hours today.
Great. Except I am confused over the "little cost" line. If we give someone a savings bond, then there is a cost. It may be hidden somehow by being a bond (and maybe you can explain it to me), but a bond still has some cost somewhere along the way. Note that it is pretty likely the government is already paying low interest rates on it's debt (the government refinances its debt the same way we all re-finance our mortgages). So, you wouldn't be saving that much money on "lower interest debt". Also, I'm not sure about this, but I think your plan would result in a very large increase in interest rates.
Can you provide a link either verifying my thought or explaining how the bonds would have lower costs?
I don't know about the OP, but I can make three suggestions (yes, this entire discussion may be off-topic). Note that your opinion of a conservative value may differ from mine (or anyone elses). If I were to suggest three conservative values, I would suggest the following (in no particular order):
Fiscal: Government should only spend on those key areas where it is required (National Defense, for example), and it should spend within its means.
Individual: Government's power over the individual should be limited.
Economic: Government should limit it's involvement in economic activity. It should try to stay out of the way of business, as much as possible.
Now, if we can agree that those are conservative values, George W. Bush's policies have all been in direct opposition to the above. Fiscally, he cuts taxes, but then spends millions on social programs. Individually, we now have few rights than we have ever had. Economically, the President has subsidized thousands of individuals and companies that should have gone out of business (from Farmers to the Steel Industry to Airlines).
Note that I am not saying John Kerry is a strong leader, I am only questioning how President Bush can be considered a conservative, at least by my three suggested definitions above.
How would you define a conservative?
Now there won't be any place where I can go to avoid the tourists.
Make that "At least you'll be awake and in the bathroom".
Caffeine is a diuretic. I can't imagine the length of the women's room line once this beer comes out.
I don't know, George Lucas made a ton of money when he released his TWO most recent Star Wars parodies....Oh, wait....
Maybe Mel could get writing help from Gene Wilder, Barry Levinson or Richard Pryor for this sequel.
There was a line in an old Sopranos Episode that described Godfather Part Three the best (this is not a quote, it's a slight paraphrase -- if someone has the exact quote, please feel free to correct it): "'Three was good, too, it's just misunderstood.'"
That was the episode where Christopher was meeting a famous rap star for the first time. In the end, Chris got in the middle of a battle between the rap star and Tony over the ownership rights to some oldies music (short paraphrase of that episode, as well).
Uh, wasn't that actually from Moby Dick?
Thanks alot. Now, I keep having this vision of Elmer Fudd singing "Kill the Jedi!".
I wouldn't worry about that happening. All the moderators used their points to rate my posts 'Overrated'. By the time they read your post, they'll be out of points. :)
I agree. What is this Han/Greedo thing? I only remember where Michael shoots first.
Michael gets frisked by Sollozzo, goes into the bathroom and gets the gun behind the toilet. Then, he walks out of the bathroom, whacks the police captain and Sollozzo. He stands up, drops the gun on the floor and walks quickly to the door, where he is picked up by a car.
Now, THAT'S a DVD trilogy worth buying.
And Janet Jackson had a "wardrobe malfunction"!
I hope no one walks by my office. I'm laughing so hard, I have tears in my eyes.
Bah. Not impressive. Give me 11,000 words written in Gungan, then I'll be impressed.
True. But the article does not discuss the Moon. It talks about Mars Rover.
Interesting point of view. And, I can sort of understand your point of view. I don't agree with it, of course. But it is an interesting argument. IMHO, the weakness in your argument is that you are comparing a polygamy, incest and bestiality with homosexuality. They are not the same.
A homosexual relationship is a relationship between two consenting adults. In polygamous relationships, the idea is that everyone agrees to this relationshiop, but one of the problems is that, eventually, the relationship ends up being abusive. In an abusive relationship, there is no agreement between consenting adults.
That is the same with incestuous and bestiality. In both types of relationships, there usually is no agreement. One party is being forced into the situation.
Follow the threads to get some ideas of how other peoples' marriages affect everyone elseWell, I did follow the links. And, I must be missing the point. I read both and I saw a couple of replies to those posts that appeared to refute the original arguments. Oh well. I am prepared to punt. It appears we are going to disagree on this forever.
Woops. I fogot to reply to this. Sorry.
You do have a point. So, let us say two gay men want to get married for reasons other than love. Why would you be opposed to it? I mean, if you aren't opposed to heterosexuals getting married for reasons not related to love, then you have no reason to be opposed to gays being married for non-emotional reasons.