I suppose I really don't understand the concept that any service that does fact checking is left wing.
Maybe because it's in their mission statement?
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Guess there are some real advantages to a oligarchy over a democracy.
A republic, which we are supposed to be, has advantages over both. I see arguments on here all of the time that the USA will never move toward green technology unless it's through socialism. This is more elitist rhetoric. Most of the people I know are concerned about long-established environmental issues, like clean air, water, and wildlife conservation. The progressives, on the other hand, point to more recent and difficult to understand issues like climate change, and ridicule those who raise questions or want to use more conservative means to address the issue. I know everyone wants to save the world, but the fact is that if we truly believe in equality we have to respect the rights of others and use persuasion rather than force to effect change. Persuasion can effect change through a republican government and capitalist economy: just not as quickly as some would like.
For example, Sacramento is always broke because California's citizens must approve all new taxes, and they don't like paying for the pensions the unions asked for.
It's fun to read this kind of pessimism-- because a lot of the folks on Slashdot won't be happy until the One World Government mandates that everyone drive a plug-in electric charged up by wind generators. Slashdotters are sure that the great unwashed are stupid and ignorant, and have to be forced to do the right thing-- or even the logical thing. The fact is that the recession has woken up a lot of Americans to the cost of fossil fuels. Our oil consumption continues to FALL. Hummer is dead, and some large SUV models from major manufacturers followed it to the grave. Families still need room for the kids and their stuff, so the family Truckster has been reborn as the "crossover", which fortunately is much more fuel efficient than either the wagons or the SUVs it replaces.
Media Matters and Campaign for America's Future? Is this supposed to be an unbiased publication? Why don't you just use Stuart Smalley's latest book as a proof text for how progressive America is?
Funny enough, the voting patterns switched after the Dem party passed the Civil Right bill back in '65... the formerly "I'll never vote Republican" voters switched at the "betrayal".
Strange, because a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the bill.
The Democrats had a HUGE majority back then, and the Presidency... so we know for sure who was opposing REAL progress.
Actually, the 286 had protected mode so it could have been done there. Regardless, DOS was already entrenched by the time the PC/AT came out and it was WAY more expensive than an XT.
Right now, the problem in the USA seems to be the president and Congress. They're the ones who decided to cancel the manned mars projects, not the American people. That being said, the American people put them in there because they were only interested in entitlements, instead of doing the hard thing (re: JFK).
I sure wouldn't mind standing around at a fuel station for four hours on a long trip while my car recharges. There had better be blackjack and hookers (never mind the car and hookers blah blah)
Because a Pro Stock dragster is exactly what every man needs in his driveway.
The average person needs a vehicle that can go at a moderate speed for 150-300 miles and refuel in minutes, not 1/4 mile with a neck-snapping launch (as much fun as that is) and a refueling time of an hour at best.
It means not taking a vacation, playing golf, and doing fund raising events before you make your decision. He had all the data and recommendations in front of him, and it wasn't 2400 pages like the last two major bills to pass in Congress. He is CiC, but he's not a military expert; therefore, he is expected to review the recommendations of his subordinates and render an EXECUTIVE DECISION. He didn't need months to do it. Maybe he had trouble making this EXECUTIVE DECISION because he's never had such a position before. Herding a bunch of community activists is not quite like "the buck stops here" decision making. And of course, as I said he thought he knew better than his military experts and supplied insufficient resources-- the action of a narcissist who just may have hoped this effort would fail. I predict that, if it does fail, he will pin that failure on his predecessor and the expert who supplied the recommendation he disregarded-- the action of a failed leader.
I have an article right over my desk from Sept. 30, 1999 about how Fannie Mae (notice how they alone are above reproach even though they are the WORST culprit in the housing collapse) was changing its lending policies due to continuing pressure from the Clinton administration.
So it's W's fault that the wars are still not over? He's been out of office since January 2009, but the progressive apologists are still burning him in effigy like a combination of Guy Fawkes and "Groundhog Day".
Ah, so we see Assange's true nature. He pretends to be a free information, "transparency" kind of guy, but he's really a vainglorious Chamberlain-style appeaser of dictators and terrorists.
Well, Mr. Moderator, tell me how drawing moral equivalence between killing aggressive enemy combatants and releasing secret information that would result in the death of soldiers trying to defend the Afghan people is fair?
Please read up on "social contracts" to see why you are wrong. The natural state of man is anarchy; we cede certain rights to a government to enable an orderly society. The US Constitution is written in this assumption; the 9th and 10th amendments clarify this position.
the right to a public education is positive.
It fails Jefferson's test: "It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket". He said that in reference to religious freedom, but I've found it to be a good test of what constitutes a natural right. I should be able to send my children to a school that I paid for. It doesn't hurt anyone if I send them to school, or if I teach them at home. But when I am told that I MUST send my kids to school, and I MUST pay taxes for a public school system whether I have children in it or not, that proves that this power lies with the state and not the people.
And it's simple enough to show speech as a positive right: If I express my right to free speech at 150dbs, then anyone within hearing distance of my speech is having their right to speech reduced or eliminated.
Right; that kind of speech is not free, because it potentially removes the right of others to exercise theirs. It doesn't matter what you say at 150 db because it is anti-freedom to drown out others (and damage their health).
What progressive cause reduces personal rights? Mandatory health care? Not being beholden to your employer, or an insurance company that can drop you on a whim greatly increases personal freedom.
You're free to pay a fine to the government if you don't want any health care. You knew that, right?
Financial reform? A stable economy increases personal freedom.
High taxation and a crippling debt reduces freedom. Bailing out certain companies and not others is government control of the economy. Cronyism is not freedom.
Alternative energy? I'd certainly like to have the personal freedom to choose sustainable energy sources and not support oppressive regimes.
In my state, we can choose which company we buy our electricity from. That came from a net REDUCTION in government regulation (the incumbent power company had to allow access to its lines in exchange for removing a cap). I can also choose which company I buy buy fuel oil from. If I don't want to use oil, I can switch to gas or an electrical system that's powered by a utility or by solar or wind technologies. So what progressive gave me these rights, again? It's only government that REMOVES my right to do these things: by state-mandated monopolies, subsidies that artificially lower or raise prices, and local zoning and state regulations that discourage the use of alternative energy or certain kinds of alternative energy.
Maybe it's time you started realizing that having every facet of our lives regulated by the government is not the normal way of things, and that we're not supposed to be happy about our "liberal" society because the government decided to throw us a few scraps. Try reading about the enlightenment and social contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because it's in their mission statement?
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
I see I got a nice "-1, Ugly truth" mod.
No, it sounds like you're making a fallacious appeal to popularity.
A republic, which we are supposed to be, has advantages over both. I see arguments on here all of the time that the USA will never move toward green technology unless it's through socialism. This is more elitist rhetoric. Most of the people I know are concerned about long-established environmental issues, like clean air, water, and wildlife conservation. The progressives, on the other hand, point to more recent and difficult to understand issues like climate change, and ridicule those who raise questions or want to use more conservative means to address the issue. I know everyone wants to save the world, but the fact is that if we truly believe in equality we have to respect the rights of others and use persuasion rather than force to effect change. Persuasion can effect change through a republican government and capitalist economy: just not as quickly as some would like.
Yes, because in the US the economy is driven by capitalism, whereas in China it's driven by socialism.
FTFY
Government subsidies, of course! Make the rich pay their "fair share" of taxes to cover it!
It's fun to read this kind of pessimism-- because a lot of the folks on Slashdot won't be happy until the One World Government mandates that everyone drive a plug-in electric charged up by wind generators. Slashdotters are sure that the great unwashed are stupid and ignorant, and have to be forced to do the right thing-- or even the logical thing. The fact is that the recession has woken up a lot of Americans to the cost of fossil fuels. Our oil consumption continues to FALL. Hummer is dead, and some large SUV models from major manufacturers followed it to the grave. Families still need room for the kids and their stuff, so the family Truckster has been reborn as the "crossover", which fortunately is much more fuel efficient than either the wagons or the SUVs it replaces.
And fat kids started wearing bowler hats and bumming lunch money off other kids on hamburger day at the cafeteria.
Media Matters and Campaign for America's Future? Is this supposed to be an unbiased publication? Why don't you just use Stuart Smalley's latest book as a proof text for how progressive America is?
Strange, because a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the bill.
The Democrats had a HUGE majority back then, and the Presidency... so we know for sure who was opposing REAL progress.
And this is the problem with the world.
Yeah, we would.
Actually, the 286 had protected mode so it could have been done there. Regardless, DOS was already entrenched by the time the PC/AT came out and it was WAY more expensive than an XT.
Right now, the problem in the USA seems to be the president and Congress. They're the ones who decided to cancel the manned mars projects, not the American people. That being said, the American people put them in there because they were only interested in entitlements, instead of doing the hard thing (re: JFK).
I sure wouldn't mind standing around at a fuel station for four hours on a long trip while my car recharges. There had better be blackjack and hookers (never mind the car and hookers blah blah)
Because a Pro Stock dragster is exactly what every man needs in his driveway.
The average person needs a vehicle that can go at a moderate speed for 150-300 miles and refuel in minutes, not 1/4 mile with a neck-snapping launch (as much fun as that is) and a refueling time of an hour at best.
The Republican plan was wrong then, and the Democratic plan is wrong now.
It means not taking a vacation, playing golf, and doing fund raising events before you make your decision. He had all the data and recommendations in front of him, and it wasn't 2400 pages like the last two major bills to pass in Congress. He is CiC, but he's not a military expert; therefore, he is expected to review the recommendations of his subordinates and render an EXECUTIVE DECISION. He didn't need months to do it. Maybe he had trouble making this EXECUTIVE DECISION because he's never had such a position before. Herding a bunch of community activists is not quite like "the buck stops here" decision making. And of course, as I said he thought he knew better than his military experts and supplied insufficient resources-- the action of a narcissist who just may have hoped this effort would fail. I predict that, if it does fail, he will pin that failure on his predecessor and the expert who supplied the recommendation he disregarded-- the action of a failed leader.
Who are "you guys"?
I have an article right over my desk from Sept. 30, 1999 about how Fannie Mae (notice how they alone are above reproach even though they are the WORST culprit in the housing collapse) was changing its lending policies due to continuing pressure from the Clinton administration.
So it's W's fault that the wars are still not over? He's been out of office since January 2009, but the progressive apologists are still burning him in effigy like a combination of Guy Fawkes and "Groundhog Day".
Well, Mr. Moderator, tell me how drawing moral equivalence between killing aggressive enemy combatants and releasing secret information that would result in the death of soldiers trying to defend the Afghan people is fair?
It fails Jefferson's test: "It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket". He said that in reference to religious freedom, but I've found it to be a good test of what constitutes a natural right. I should be able to send my children to a school that I paid for. It doesn't hurt anyone if I send them to school, or if I teach them at home. But when I am told that I MUST send my kids to school, and I MUST pay taxes for a public school system whether I have children in it or not, that proves that this power lies with the state and not the people.
Right; that kind of speech is not free, because it potentially removes the right of others to exercise theirs. It doesn't matter what you say at 150 db because it is anti-freedom to drown out others (and damage their health).
You're free to pay a fine to the government if you don't want any health care. You knew that, right?
High taxation and a crippling debt reduces freedom. Bailing out certain companies and not others is government control of the economy. Cronyism is not freedom.
In my state, we can choose which company we buy our electricity from. That came from a net REDUCTION in government regulation (the incumbent power company had to allow access to its lines in exchange for removing a cap). I can also choose which company I buy buy fuel oil from. If I don't want to use oil, I can switch to gas or an electrical system that's powered by a utility or by solar or wind technologies. So what progressive gave me these rights, again? It's only government that REMOVES my right to do these things: by state-mandated monopolies, subsidies that artificially lower or raise prices, and local zoning and state regulations that discourage the use of alternative energy or certain kinds of alternative energy.
Maybe it's time you started realizing that having every facet of our lives regulated by the government is not the normal way of things, and that we're not supposed to be happy about our "liberal" society because the government decided to throw us a few scraps. Try reading about the enlightenment and social contracts.