You're a fucking retard who likes to impose his chosen belief system on others, blindly believing that YOUR religion and beliefs are better than those of the billions of non-christians on this planet. Basically, you're a relic. A useless intolerant judgemental fuck who does not understand god's love. You blame your hate on your god, and you ignore his love and his word.
Heaven will be a lot hotter than you expected if you do not accept other people's choices with love in your heart.
Whooooa now....I'm agnostic and I don't particularly care for evangelists who don't go away if I ask them to, but don't you have a problem with calling someone whom you've never met judgemental? That's kinda like the pot callin the weed green, if you ask me (yeah I know, no one did). I'm assuming by your post that you feel your beliefs are superior to the poster's, and this is something I see quite often. You accuse him of something, yet you show it yourself. Let me state: If you don't think your beliefs are the most correct, why do you believe them? I'm not saying the OP *is* correct, only that it's rather silly to make his/her *depth* of belief sound silly, as I'm sure you're as convinced of YOUR beliefs as the OP is about his/hers. I fail to understand how anyone on either side of the religion/non-religion debate is ever going to change any minds at all if both sides only put each other down. I would think that should the OP "accept other people's choices with love in [his/her] heart," you would be one of those 'other people,' and I would also suggest that you think very carefully, as the OP is just one of those 'other people,' and you seem disinclined to take your own advice. I'm not meaning to pick on you, I'm just commenting on how both the OP and yourself seem more interested in telling off those who don't think like you than in understanding WHY they don't, and perhaps learning something. Note that I'm not commenting on your beliefs themselves, just that when expressed the way you did, they don't seem any more tolerant/enlightened than the ones you were posting against.
what?!? do you _really_ think that clinton was elected TWICE because of his campaign issues? he was better looking than the opposition and he had charisma to sway the people (smarter and cuter)
You forgot to mention that his platform changed radically depending on what group he was talking to. Union group? It's all about the workers, baby! Group of CEOs, it's all about screwing the workers, baby! He knew he couldn't be everything to everyone forver, but he only really had to do it while campaigning, and he managed it pretty well. Of course, we all know it's the candidate's height + hair that really does it, though.
Well, you know, that's why they call it gambling. If you want to go to Vegas and win big bucks with mad skillz, try billiards.
That's why they call it gambling? What is? I didn't realize that gambling was defined as not being allowed to think while playing a game. I thought they call it gambling because you're betting. I realize that not all games of chance require skill, but you're a fucking idiot if you think skill doesn't matter in any casino games. If gambling in Vegas never included any element of skill, there would only be mostly random stuff like roulette, slots, and perhaps random number guessing or something. Blackjack, craps, poker, baccarat, trivia games, and the like wouldn't be there. How much fun would playing poker be if you couldn't look at your hand? What fun would craps be if you only got one roll period? Why is it ok to limit people's mental abilities in order to ensure that the already multi-billion dollar casino industry in Vegas makes a few more bucks? Besides, I don't play pool well enough to make *any* money, but I have a decent (approx 1%) system for blackjack. Why should I play pool, when what I want is to play blackjack? They're not terribly similar. Your analogy is somewhat appropriate, though, as billiards includes an element of luck, although it is mostly skill. Most people who play pool aren't sharps (or sharks, whatever your preference is). Most people who play blackjack aren't going to count cards effectively. Saying that people can't use their own innate skill in blackjack is like forcing pool players to wear gauntlets while playing. It is silly. Also, I never said I wanted to go to Vegas and win big bucks. I said that I *wouldn't* be going to Vegas, and that the casinos' assinine rules was only part of the reason. I appreciate your trying to suggest an alternative activity, but I assure that I'm quite capable of making my own itenerary, thank you.
Not nearly as frightening. I was aware these existed, but the OP seemed to imply that there are entire PDs composed of volunteers. Auxillary I can handle. An entire PD of volunteers would not be good. Of course, I really don't think the cops should have as much power as they do, anyways. It's not like I can just go around searching cop cars and cop's houses. I've actually had a cop tell me 'I can do whatever I want. I am a Police Officer.' That's why the thought of an entirely volunteer PD is scary to me.
Goodbye volunteer fire, ambulance, and police departments.
Umm...please tell me where there are volunteer police departments so that I NEVER EVER go there. That's freakin scary. One of my old friends worked in the PD where I used to live, and some of the people they didn't hire were...scary. If they could just volunteer as a cop somewhere, I wouldn't want to be there. It's bad enough when the real cops think they're above the law and can do whatever they want, but it's held somewhat in check by the fairly stringent hiring profiles and the official grievance procedures. Volunteer cops = frightening.
And what if it's not just 'me' counting cards, but hundreds, or even thousands of people? That'll eat up profits right quick!
I didn't know that (1) casinos had thousands of blackjack tables and (2) there's some sort of manifest destiny that ensures completely insane profits for casinos. I don't really care if it eats up profits. If a casino isn't a profitable business (yeah, right) then maybe it shouldn't exist.
Why not track the cards? Simply shuffle when the odds favour the player too much.
They do. Even with 9 or 12 deck shoes. They're greedy jackasses. Anyone who gives money to a casino deserves to lose everything they have and everything they can borrow. It's a sucker bet from the beginning, and I have no sympathy for suckers.
Note: before I get all the 'I just gamble for fun' replies, here's my response: If throwing away money is your idea of fun, have at it. I'm talking about people who have an expectation of winning, even though logic clearly tells you that it is not likely. I'm talking about people who keep gambling long after their stake money is lost. If you go and blow a hundred bucks or something and then come home, and that's what you intended to do, you're not who I'm talking about. If you can afford to lose 20k, and that's what you intend to do, you aren't who I'm talking about.
No, they're going to identify regular players (i.e. players who lose), so that they can then encourage them to keep on losing by giving them free drinks and so on.
When will these idiots learn that they could just *pay* for all the drinks and rooms and women and whatever else casinos are handing out 'free' these days, and still probably have more money left over? Whoever thought up the 'comp' and 'free' labels for what's going on should be doing infomercials. It isn't 'free' if you have to lose your house to get it.
Get a grip, man. He's not talking about improving his mathematical odds when he says "get up and walk". He's talking about not getting noticed by the casino manager. If you double their buy-in in the first half-hour you walk in the casino you're going to get noticed and they will ask you to leave. If you keep winning big they'll send your mug around Las Vegas and no one in town will let you gamble.
That's what I've never understood about Vegas. The whole premise is 'come to vegas and win big!' and yet, when you do, you're barred from Vegas? That's like being kicked out of Aspen for skiing too well. Why would I want to go to Vegas when I can't improve my chances (without *influencing* the cards, just with math and observation) or I'll be put on some kind of hit list? They rig every damn game to strongly favor the house, but I can't use innate skill? That's just bullshit. I'm sorry, but why does the law support this crap? It's like saying 'you know how to putt, get off my golf course!' It's just stupid. If I just wanted to waste money while being surrounded by loud drunken idiots and half-naked women, I'd just go to New Orleans. At least then I wouldn't have to worry about being banned from the whole damn town.
Looking out for big winners helps them identify the counters that are really costing them.
Costing them? That's a laugh. Any big casino in Las Vegas makes more profit every day than I will likely see in my whole life. I'm sure that the 10k you could win counting is really going to offset the 3mil in cash they took in in a single night. Whatever. I'm all for catching people who are unfairly influencing a game, cause that's what cheating really is. A knowledge of odds/good memory/simple arithmatic skills; these things ARE NOT CHEATING. They'd make merely insane profits with a straight game, not ludicrous. Well, that just gives me less incentive to patronize that city. Fuck Las Vegas. Greedy casino bastards. I'll just practice my system on pogo.com or something.
...even if it's simply wasted if unused, it's not the American way to give ANYTHING for free.
I suppose the large number of charities in this country would disagree. Also, I believe that America provides the largest amount of foreign aid, in real dollars. (please don't give me that 'percent of GNP' bullshit. would you rather have 1% of 1,000,000,000 dollars, or 100% of 50 dollars?) Also, many grifters and other assorted scum make good livings (in some cases, *very* good livings) 'flying a sign', or standing around at street corners begging for free money. Also, Goodwill and the Salvation Army would be surprised to hear that Americans don't give anything away for free. I know it's all trendy to diss America, but with the many real problems we have, remarking on fake ones is just silly.
It is not normal in a 1st world country to have a grid failure
You're exactly right. Were it normal, it would be happening so often as to not be news. The last time something approaching this happened in that area, it was 1965. I'd say that fits the definition of 'not normal'. Besides, the US can certainly run a power grid for 60 million people. There are three major grids in this country, and only one went down. That means far more than 60 million people did NOT experience any blackouts. You are teh suck.
can i kill you and eat you then? How is eating animals any different? It's one thing to compete, it's another to kill for gain.
What's the difference between killing a cow (who wouldn't even be alive in the first place if we weren't going to eat him) and killing a vegetable (who also wouldn't be alive if we weren't going to eat it)? I've always wondered that. It's all killing something alive in order to stay alive, I guess vegetables just aren't as cute or something. I also wouldn't really consider eating to be a 'gain', per se. I don't know anyone who doesn't have to do it every once in a while. Besides, I never said I'm against vegetarianism itself, just the evangelists of it, that try to preach their philosophy to me. You don't wanna eat animals, that's fine....but don't tell me I can't.
I wasn't referring only to welfare, as that's only a part of it (although not a particularly efficient one)
But let's tackle a macro-scale assumption first: in the event that the economic equation is truly as you say it is, why would they allow the entire global economic order to collapse instead of simply reducing benefits and/or cutting costs?
I've been wondering exactly that for years. If you find out the answer, let me know.
Americans are not particularly slaves to a welfare state.
Not particularly, and not yet. However, the time is coming.
Why wouldn't politicians, being nothing if not self-interested, vote to save their own jobs and curtail benefits and maybe lose a few votes, instead of losing everything in a total economic collapse?
My best guess would be that they truly don't believe it will happen. D.C. is very insular. No matter what opinion polls the politicians read, I doubt they truly care, or they *would* be looking beyond simple self-interest. They're caught in somewhat of a vicious circle, because in order to get votes, they must increase spending, but in order to gain votes, they must cut taxes, and so far President Bush is listening. He's increased spending and cut taxes, only one of which he should have done. Which one, of course, depending on your political bias. Social security has been plundered for years, and I seriously doubt that upon retirement, I will see any portion of what I've been paying into it for my entire working life. The republicrats and demopublicans have both been guilty of gross mismanagement and in my opinion, when the revolution comes, it'll be because of social programs the government can no longer provide that people believe are their rights as an American. Human history is chock full of empires that never thought they would end....composed of leaders who never saw the end coming until it was too late. I fail to see why we should be any different. Human failings, and in particular the feeling of invincibility, have often been the undoing of civilizations.
While I appreciate your patronizing me, I have always found that those who answer the way you have throughout this thread have no real idea of why they believe what they believe. You can sit in your world, and I'll stay in the real one. You have no idea what I have or have not done. You obviously think that anyone with different beliefs than you is wrong, and stupid. I don't share that belief. Attack me personally all you wish, as I'm neither 12 nor an idiot, and I'm perfectly capable of handling it. In my experience, those with nothing left to attack always do that. I'm sure you're very happy, obviously having as you do so much undirected (or misdirected) anger and hatred in you. In exchange for your condescension, I'll offer you my pity. I truly do feel sorry for you.
So that what you're saying is, if I read your post correctly, that no matter what justifications *exist* for going to war with Saddam, and no matter how many of those other than the two you mentioned got press before the war started, you picked those two reasons, decided they weren't valid, and thus decried the entire war. The suffering of the Iraqi people didn't factor into your equation, neither did the undisputed fact that Saddam Hussein personally caused both of the world's largest oil spills, on purpose. You forget that Saddam has gone on record attempting to buy nuclear materials from France, and also forgot that French scientists were hired by Saddam for nuclear research. Either you've forgotten that stuff, or you just don't care. You're entitled to not care about that stuff, but please allow others of us *to* care. The reasons you mentioned were the ones the *public* grabbed onto most quickly, but in reality public opinion rarely influences high level policy decisions, no matter who is in office. They weren't the only reasons given, nor are they the only valid reasons for dismantling the Iraqi regime. Saddam went on record as an opponent of the U.S. LONG before 2001. Should you ask whether we should go around liberating other countries from oppressive regimes, my answer is an unequivocal yes. No one else will do it, they're all just as content with a global status quo of 'civilized countries over here, hellhole dictatorships over there' as you are. Why did I (not randomly) compare us to other countries? Not for the reason you supposed. Rather than gloating about our supremacy, I was suggesting (apparently a bit too subtly) that whatever problems we have here, there are many countries where our problems would seem a relief. Does that mean we shouldn't try to make our country better? Of course not. But perhaps you could try to appreciate what we *do* have, rather than being so obviously full of vitriol over what we do not.
Meaning people would have died who otherwise would have lived. Sudden short-term spikes in the price of power can't be easily dealt with since so much of the components of electrical demand can't (quickly) be changed other than by drastic measures such as turning off the air conditioning.
Again, what about the people who don't even HAVE a/c? Again, you apparently don't care about them. Why are their lives worthless, while those who have a/c but can't use it temporarily are not? You think all old people have a/c? You think everyone makes it to their 'appointed time' if the government steps in?
Sorry to rain on your libertarian parade, but anybody in a democratic republic who would allow somebody like Enron to kill old people doesn't deserve anybody's vote.
Again you bring libertarianism into it. Then you callously suggest through implication that libertarians would allow Enron to break the law and thus cause people's deaths. Nice spin. Whatever Enron did, i guarnatee you it wasn't libertarians in power who did nothing to stop it. I can also guarantee you that those in power who looked the other way weren't all Republican, they were just all bought. You are in a democratic republic, and you 'allowed Enron to kill old people'....does that mean you don't deserve a vote? Or does it just pain you too much to admit that too much government interference only makes things worse for more people? How are people in CA going to feel when their state government goes bankrupt? Is that a better long-term solution than just fixing problems within the energy industry? Bailouts don't work. They are stopgap measures at best. No matter what we do, people will die before their 'appointed time'. No amount of government interference (save forcing everyone to live like veal calves) is ever going to eradicate untimely death. Is it better, in your estimation, to make life worse for everyone in order to protect a few? At what point does that become invalid, if any? Is our government's responsibility to make sure everyone is completely safe and happy? Is that what you believe our government was designed for? Why is it considered 'cruel' or 'cold' to believe that natural selection is a stronger force than national government?
Whatever problems California's government is undergoing now, the fact is that had they simply passed through all of the cost of electricity on the spot market to the end-user, people would have DIED before the market 'fixed the problem'.
Um. Meaning what? People aren't dying in CA now? People haven't always had air conditioning, you know. People haven't always had electricity. Somehow they managed for thousands of years without it. People die. People get hurt. That's harsh, but reality often is. This misguided notion that somehow we can preserve all life and avoid all unpleasantness is pervasive and attractive, but ultimately bullshit. There is no such thing as a life without risk. You also apparently don't care about people who are too poor to afford electricity, or air conditioning. They die every year, here in TX as well as in CA and other states. Are the deaths of those with more money more tragic?
Who said the market was supposed to fix the problem? I never did. I never suggested what the solution could be, I just questioned your assertions.
There's a certain percentage of electric demand which is elastic, and a certain percentage which is inelastic; pretending that a simple libertarian anarchic solution would have solved everything is pretty damn juvenile.
Who pretended that? I never said anything about solutions, libertarian or otherwise. Not to mention the fact that 'libertarian' and 'anarchic' are not analogous, not even close. Artificially propping up industries is no more helpful than artificially limiting them. Government interference can be good, in small doses, but lethal in large ones. California is experiencing this, and while I doubt it, I hope they will learn from it. As you've said, Texas has not yet forced its power companies to divest. Maybe that will save us, at any rate I hope it will. I also hope that having our own grid will do something to help, as well, as I just heard on the news this morning that we haven't ever pushed it beyond 70% capacity.
Your basic premise is absolutely correct, but I'd quibble on the particulars of which party stands for what.
Why? They change about every 30 years anyhow. The key is that neither party really wants change, they only want to edge each other out in the power grab. Neither party cares about you. Neither party is dedicated to making your life better, unless you are a major PAC or other political contributor. What does it matter what each party is supposedly 'for' when the actions of both show very clearly that they care for nothing beyond grabbing and consolidating power and influence? The answer to this country's problems does not lie in either the Republican or the Democratic party.
And yes, your second part about the dire welfare problem, as it stands, is FUD. There are some serious logical and factual problems with your premise and your assumptions. Keep working on it.
I'm getting really sick of replies like this. Can you not read my tagline? Or do you just choose to ignore it? If you bother telling me that I have serious factual and logical errors, why do you not bother to say what they are? I'm sick and fucking tired of people saying that I can't possibly be right while offering NO evidence to the contrary. Mind you, you could very well be correct. I could very well have errors in my thinking. However, just saying I do doesn't point them out. I 'keep working' on *all* my beliefs, but in order to change what I believe, something which contradicts it yet has internal consistency and logic behind it must be offered. Fewer people are footing the bill for this country, part of which includes subsidies for a larger and larger part of those who are NOT footing the bill. Please tell me how this is a sustainable trend. Don't say 'It just is' and don't say 'There are a number of reasons, none of which I'm going to state.' If you can't be bothered to do that, then don't bother to reply at all. ('you' not directly referring to parent poster in this instance, but to anyone who disagrees with me)
I won't just say you're wrong, I'll just say you're amazingly ignorant.
I'll just say you're actually a talking plant. Does that make it true?
As far as "proving" anything, very funny. I could spend an hour or so digging up objective evidence to back up all those assertions and show where yours are quite mistaken, but I'm fairly confident it wouldn't change your mind a bit.
Far from spending an hour to refute all of them, you refused to spend even 1 minute to try and refute *one* of them. Nice job! If you want to change my mind, personal attacks certainly aren't going to do it. If your goal was *really* to change my mind, you should have at least *attempted* to provide something besides 'I'm right and you're wrong and I don't care what you say.'
You'd cast doubt on the sources
You'd have to provide some first.
or find some dodgy counter-claim from Fox News or just plain not get it or not care, and it would never end.
Change Fox News to CNN and I could say the same about you. That's what a debate is. Claim and counter-claim. No, you're not going to simply say 'I *could* prove you wrong but I choose not to but believe me I could!' and have me believe that, because if I were to base my opinions on such flimsy evidence, I'd be exactly the sheep those in power want me to. As I said before, if you want to convince me, show me some proof. If you can't do that, why bother saying you can?
No, if you're interested in any of those things, why don't you try playing devil's advocate against yourself and do a little Google research? I do that from time to time. It's good exercise.
What makes you think I don't? Nice to know you're qualified to assert what I do or do not do, unrelated to what I've said.
And for the record, I am a fiscally conservative Libertarian who hates the Democrats as well as the Republicans. The Dems are guilty of going along with all of the bullshit of the past few years, but they were not the creative "brains" behind it, and this administration has had more leeway to impose its whim than any in my lifetime.
I know you meant 'any administration in the U.S.', but I must point out to you that taken from a world-wide perspective, there are several regimes out there with absolute control, such as Libya, China, North Korea, Singapore....those administrations have MUCH more power to impose their will on their people than ours does.
the Shrub is the worst president in at least 100 years.
That's a fairly bold statement. Care to back it up? Of course not. All you will say is you don't like him, you don't like the war, etc etc etc, quoting word for word from the 'bush = everything bad' book that's been distributed to everyone who doesn't like him. See, if you reread my post, I'm not anywhere saying that Bush is a great guy, or a great president, and I didn't vote for him, either. I'm just pointing out that by making Bush the focus of all your ire, you're missing out on quite a bit.
Try it out - pick some arbitrary measure and compare.
Ok. Arbitrary measure: tax increases. George Bush sr. - largest tax increase in history Bill Clinton - largest tax increase in history, followed by a NEW largest tax increase in history. George W. Bush - cut taxes, included a $400 handout to those making under 30k/year and with at least one kid
well, that's one arbitrary measure by which he beats his father and his predecessor. Oops, I wasn't sposed to do that, was I?
Do I like the president? No. But I didn't like Bill Clinton, either, and I still resented the conservative's attempts to make everything on earth his fault. Why should I do less for George W. Bush? I don't have to like our current president to understand that he is not responsible for everything, and not even for everything that the government does. I also love my country enough to know that even 8 years under a bad president is better than 1 year under a tyrannical
The grim reality is, the government is always to blame when something like this happens. This is because our government has taken upon itself to try and be everything to everyone and do everything. The california government would surely have taken the credit, had their ill-considered plan worked. When it did not, they bear the brunt of the blame. California never should have subsidized electricity. You say it would have been political suicide not to, but now it has turned into political suicide PLUS major problems with power. You can not tell me that no one in the california government knew what was going on. They simply did not speak up out of fear or self-interest. This makes the california government share the blame. Enron has already paid quite a heavy price for its illegal practices. They *do* bear their portion of the responsibility, of course, but the california government cannot avoid taking its share of responsibility. Now we're facing a similar situation in Texas, with the only exception being that we have our own power grid, which is a variable that I am not informed enough to be able to take into account. I'm just afraid that we're going to have more blackouts here, and our state debt will skyrocket, and that our government will try to push the blame on someone else, although it wouldn't be enron. If (as has been stated) *no one* in CA thought that additional plants would be neccessary, when history has shown that they were, where would *you* say the fault lies? Isn't there some sort of governmental body that is assigned to make those kinds of decisions?
Excellent post, with many many good points. However, I must say that the two-party system we have generally leaves the majority of US citizens with no voice. If you choose to support the Democrats, you are asking for more social legislation and even larger government and even more taxes, however if you support the Republicans, you are asking for even MORE social legislation, draconian anti-competitiveness measures, and an attempted reshaping of society into an image the Republicans are comfortable with. Either way, freedom advocates lose. Neither party is interested in representing the people it claims to, and neither party fields candidates I can agree with. Their stranglehold on the election process, however, is likely to continue for the forseeable future. I wonder how many people know that the founding fathers themselves wanted a more open election process?
It is sobering to realize that the approx. 40% of people who don't pay taxes in this country are also the people who receive most government handouts, and are thus not likely to *ever* pay taxes. If that number continues to go up, as most liberals want it to, there will come a time when the remaining taxpayers *cannot* support the burden of the non-taxpayers and will either flee the country, or will become non-taxpayers themselves, and either way this country will be fucked. People can't seem to see past their petty squabbles and personal dislikes to turn this situation around, however, and most liberals *and* conservatives I have personally known don't believe such a thing will ever happen. Our leaders continue to fight for their own personal power and influence and to ignore the true problems facing our country. The problem is, money has to come from *somewhere*, and unless something is done, we're going to first turn most of our citizens into subsistence level government dependants, and then into dead people as the government collapses under its own bloated weight and there is no longer a welfare bureau or anyone handing out or honoring food stamps. I know many will label this part of my post FUD, yet the mere fact that something may cause fear, uncertainty, or doubt is no reason to believe it does not exist. Complacency has long been a camouflage for rot, and it will be the death of our society if we aren't careful.
Arguing against building a power plant in the face of information that would lead one to think they were required.
If there was no information to say they were required, no one ever refused to build one, they just never saw the need and it never made debate.
I would define refuse as "2 a : to show or express unwillingness to do or comply with"
Using this definition, it is not neccessary to have information showing plants were required, it is simply enough to show that there was stated unwillingness to build any. In this case, we would need to know if any proposals were considered by the companies themselves, and then rejected. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination to see if that holds true. However, if even one company made a decision *not* to build a plant, based on financial or any other grounds, that would constitute refusal...but not by the state itself, by the people who would foot the bill. If there was no question as to whether to build or not, then there was no refusal to do so, in my opinion, even though the literal definition only calls for expression of unwillingness, which a simple "We are not going to build any new plants" in a press release from a power company would satisfy. However, the poster never did reveal any sources of this 'lie' beyond his own imagination, so I must conclude that it was made up by the original poster, and not by conservatives. Also please note that I really don't care if conservatives *or* liberals are caught in a lie, I'd just like to know for sure that they were before making fun of them for it.
Well said. I guess I should have concentrated more on the sources for the grandparent's post, as I really haven't heard anything (before today) about california refusing to build new plants, the way I heard it on Limbaugh's show was just that the state agreed to make up the difference between what consumers paid and what companies charged, and that's a big reason there's so large a state deficit. From what I can tell (although I am by *no* means all-aware or anything) the grandparent was building a straw man to knock down based on his/her opinions on what a conservative *might* say. He appeared to attribute it to Limbaugh without actually doing so, which precludes the 'Hey Limbaugh never said that' argument, so I was just trying to point out flaws in his/her post. I really don't know what went on in CA, but I *do* know that where I live, in Texas, we're most likely going to experience a variant of it. I suppose my experiences following the deregulation here may allow me to provide better analysis.
You don't need to suck up power (pollute more by making fossil fuel power plants work extra hard) to prove something that's already obvious.
What if we use solar power to do it? How about hydroelectric? What makes it unneccessary? Your feelings? How are you qualified to judge what is unneccessary to someone else? Why are your environmental beliefs any more important that someone else's high uptime beliefs? You've already shown that you are no expert in matters of electricity generation, so why should your views on consumption prevail over an individual's beliefs on the value of uptime? What qualifies you to quantify the relative merits of each and decide which is more important? I'm not questioning your right to believe whatever you like, but why should others suddenly change their behavior because of what you believe? Would you change your behavior because of the religious beliefs of someone else? What constitutes 'needless' in your opinion? I know it may seem like I'm attacking you here, however I make no distinction between environmental and religious evangelism, and though I personally support anyone's right to do either, I've always wondered why the former is almost universally tolerated while the latter is almost universally reviled. I'm honestly curious.
(In case anyone is wondering, I also class vegetarian evangalism the same, along with any other evangelism that requires me to substantially change my lifestyle in return for miniscule or speculative rewards in some unspecified future time.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a pisces and my hobbies include pornography, software development and woodworking. (One of those is a joke)
You didn't have to tell *me* that. I mean, who would develop software as a hobby? It was obvious.
You're a fucking retard who likes to impose his chosen belief system on others, blindly believing that YOUR religion and beliefs are better than those of the billions of non-christians on this planet.
Basically, you're a relic. A useless intolerant judgemental fuck who does not understand god's love. You blame your hate on your god, and you ignore his love and his word.
Heaven will be a lot hotter than you expected if you do not accept other people's choices with love in your heart.
Whooooa now....I'm agnostic and I don't particularly care for evangelists who don't go away if I ask them to, but don't you have a problem with calling someone whom you've never met judgemental? That's kinda like the pot callin the weed green, if you ask me (yeah I know, no one did). I'm assuming by your post that you feel your beliefs are superior to the poster's, and this is something I see quite often. You accuse him of something, yet you show it yourself. Let me state: If you don't think your beliefs are the most correct, why do you believe them? I'm not saying the OP *is* correct, only that it's rather silly to make his/her *depth* of belief sound silly, as I'm sure you're as convinced of YOUR beliefs as the OP is about his/hers. I fail to understand how anyone on either side of the religion/non-religion debate is ever going to change any minds at all if both sides only put each other down. I would think that should the OP "accept other people's choices with love in [his/her] heart," you would be one of those 'other people,' and I would also suggest that you think very carefully, as the OP is just one of those 'other people,' and you seem disinclined to take your own advice. I'm not meaning to pick on you, I'm just commenting on how both the OP and yourself seem more interested in telling off those who don't think like you than in understanding WHY they don't, and perhaps learning something. Note that I'm not commenting on your beliefs themselves, just that when expressed the way you did, they don't seem any more tolerant/enlightened than the ones you were posting against.
what?!? do you _really_ think that clinton was elected TWICE because of his campaign issues? he was better looking than the opposition and he had charisma to sway the people (smarter and cuter)
You forgot to mention that his platform changed radically depending on what group he was talking to. Union group? It's all about the workers, baby! Group of CEOs, it's all about screwing the workers, baby! He knew he couldn't be everything to everyone forver, but he only really had to do it while campaigning, and he managed it pretty well. Of course, we all know it's the candidate's height + hair that really does it, though.
Well, you know, that's why they call it gambling. If you want to go to Vegas and win big bucks with mad skillz, try billiards.
That's why they call it gambling? What is? I didn't realize that gambling was defined as not being allowed to think while playing a game.
I thought they call it gambling because you're betting.
I realize that not all games of chance require skill, but you're a fucking idiot if you think skill doesn't matter in any casino games. If gambling in Vegas never included any element of skill, there would only be mostly random stuff like roulette, slots, and perhaps random number guessing or something. Blackjack, craps, poker, baccarat, trivia games, and the like wouldn't be there. How much fun would playing poker be if you couldn't look at your hand? What fun would craps be if you only got one roll period? Why is it ok to limit people's mental abilities in order to ensure that the already multi-billion dollar casino industry in Vegas makes a few more bucks? Besides, I don't play pool well enough to make *any* money, but I have a decent (approx 1%) system for blackjack. Why should I play pool, when what I want is to play blackjack? They're not terribly similar. Your analogy is somewhat appropriate, though, as billiards includes an element of luck, although it is mostly skill. Most people who play pool aren't sharps (or sharks, whatever your preference is). Most people who play blackjack aren't going to count cards effectively. Saying that people can't use their own innate skill in blackjack is like forcing pool players to wear gauntlets while playing. It is silly. Also, I never said I wanted to go to Vegas and win big bucks. I said that I *wouldn't* be going to Vegas, and that the casinos' assinine rules was only part of the reason. I appreciate your trying to suggest an alternative activity, but I assure that I'm quite capable of making my own itenerary, thank you.
"auxillary"
Not nearly as frightening. I was aware these existed, but the OP seemed to imply that there are entire PDs composed of volunteers. Auxillary I can handle. An entire PD of volunteers would not be good. Of course, I really don't think the cops should have as much power as they do, anyways. It's not like I can just go around searching cop cars and cop's houses. I've actually had a cop tell me 'I can do whatever I want. I am a Police Officer.' That's why the thought of an entirely volunteer PD is scary to me.
Goodbye volunteer fire, ambulance, and police departments.
Umm...please tell me where there are volunteer police departments so that I NEVER EVER go there. That's freakin scary. One of my old friends worked in the PD where I used to live, and some of the people they didn't hire were...scary. If they could just volunteer as a cop somewhere, I wouldn't want to be there. It's bad enough when the real cops think they're above the law and can do whatever they want, but it's held somewhat in check by the fairly stringent hiring profiles and the official grievance procedures. Volunteer cops = frightening.
And what if it's not just 'me' counting cards, but hundreds, or even thousands of people? That'll eat up profits right quick!
I didn't know that (1) casinos had thousands of blackjack tables and (2) there's some sort of manifest destiny that ensures completely insane profits for casinos. I don't really care if it eats up profits. If a casino isn't a profitable business (yeah, right) then maybe it shouldn't exist.
Why not track the cards? Simply shuffle when the odds favour the player too much.
They do. Even with 9 or 12 deck shoes. They're greedy jackasses. Anyone who gives money to a casino deserves to lose everything they have and everything they can borrow. It's a sucker bet from the beginning, and I have no sympathy for suckers.
Note: before I get all the 'I just gamble for fun' replies, here's my response:
If throwing away money is your idea of fun, have at it. I'm talking about people who have an expectation of winning, even though logic clearly tells you that it is not likely. I'm talking about people who keep gambling long after their stake money is lost. If you go and blow a hundred bucks or something and then come home, and that's what you intended to do, you're not who I'm talking about. If you can afford to lose 20k, and that's what you intend to do, you aren't who I'm talking about.
No, they're going to identify regular players (i.e. players who lose), so that they can then encourage them to keep on losing by giving them free drinks and so on.
When will these idiots learn that they could just *pay* for all the drinks and rooms and women and whatever else casinos are handing out 'free' these days, and still probably have more money left over? Whoever thought up the 'comp' and 'free' labels for what's going on should be doing infomercials. It isn't 'free' if you have to lose your house to get it.
Get a grip, man. He's not talking about improving his mathematical odds when he says "get up and walk". He's talking about not getting noticed by the casino manager. If you double their buy-in in the first half-hour you walk in the casino you're going to get noticed and they will ask you to leave. If you keep winning big they'll send your mug around Las Vegas and no one in town will let you gamble.
That's what I've never understood about Vegas. The whole premise is 'come to vegas and win big!' and yet, when you do, you're barred from Vegas?
That's like being kicked out of Aspen for skiing too well. Why would I want to go to Vegas when I can't improve my chances (without *influencing* the cards, just with math and observation) or I'll be put on some kind of hit list? They rig every damn game to strongly favor the house, but I can't use innate skill? That's just bullshit. I'm sorry, but why does the law support this crap? It's like saying 'you know how to putt, get off my golf course!' It's just stupid. If I just wanted to waste money while being surrounded by loud drunken idiots and half-naked women, I'd just go to New Orleans. At least then I wouldn't have to worry about being banned from the whole damn town.
Looking out for big winners helps them identify the counters that are really costing them.
Costing them? That's a laugh. Any big casino in Las Vegas makes more profit every day than I will likely see in my whole life. I'm sure that the 10k you could win counting is really going to offset the 3mil in cash they took in in a single night. Whatever. I'm all for catching people who are unfairly influencing a game, cause that's what cheating really is. A knowledge of odds/good memory/simple arithmatic skills; these things ARE NOT CHEATING. They'd make merely insane profits with a straight game, not ludicrous. Well, that just gives me less incentive to patronize that city. Fuck Las Vegas. Greedy casino bastards. I'll just practice my system on pogo.com or something.
...even if it's simply wasted if unused, it's not the American way to give ANYTHING for free.
I suppose the large number of charities in this country would disagree. Also, I believe that America provides the largest amount of foreign aid, in real dollars. (please don't give me that 'percent of GNP' bullshit. would you rather have 1% of 1,000,000,000 dollars, or 100% of 50 dollars?)
Also, many grifters and other assorted scum make good livings (in some cases, *very* good livings) 'flying a sign', or standing around at street corners begging for free money. Also, Goodwill and the Salvation Army would be surprised to hear that Americans don't give anything away for free. I know it's all trendy to diss America, but with the many real problems we have, remarking on fake ones is just silly.
It is not normal in a 1st world country to have a grid failure
You're exactly right. Were it normal, it would be happening so often as to not be news. The last time something approaching this happened in that area, it was 1965. I'd say that fits the definition of 'not normal'. Besides, the US can certainly run a power grid for 60 million people. There are three major grids in this country, and only one went down. That means far more than 60 million people did NOT experience any blackouts. You are teh suck.
can i kill you and eat you then? How is eating animals any different? It's one thing to compete, it's another to kill for gain.
What's the difference between killing a cow (who wouldn't even be alive in the first place if we weren't going to eat him) and killing a vegetable (who also wouldn't be alive if we weren't going to eat it)? I've always wondered that. It's all killing something alive in order to stay alive, I guess vegetables just aren't as cute or something.
I also wouldn't really consider eating to be a 'gain', per se. I don't know anyone who doesn't have to do it every once in a while. Besides, I never said I'm against vegetarianism itself, just the evangelists of it, that try to preach their philosophy to me. You don't wanna eat animals, that's fine....but don't tell me I can't.
I wasn't referring only to welfare, as that's only a part of it (although not a particularly efficient one)
But let's tackle a macro-scale assumption first: in the event that the economic equation is truly as you say it is, why would they allow the entire global economic order to collapse instead of simply reducing benefits and/or cutting costs?
I've been wondering exactly that for years. If you find out the answer, let me know.
Americans are not particularly slaves to a welfare state.
Not particularly, and not yet. However, the time is coming.
Why wouldn't politicians, being nothing if not self-interested, vote to save their own jobs and curtail benefits and maybe lose a few votes, instead of losing everything in a total economic collapse?
My best guess would be that they truly don't believe it will happen. D.C. is very insular. No matter what opinion polls the politicians read, I doubt they truly care, or they *would* be looking beyond simple self-interest. They're caught in somewhat of a vicious circle, because in order to get votes, they must increase spending, but in order to gain votes, they must cut taxes, and so far President Bush is listening. He's increased spending and cut taxes, only one of which he should have done. Which one, of course, depending on your political bias. Social security has been plundered for years, and I seriously doubt that upon retirement, I will see any portion of what I've been paying into it for my entire working life. The republicrats and demopublicans have both been guilty of gross mismanagement and in my opinion, when the revolution comes, it'll be because of social programs the government can no longer provide that people believe are their rights as an American.
Human history is chock full of empires that never thought they would end....composed of leaders who never saw the end coming until it was too late. I fail to see why we should be any different. Human failings, and in particular the feeling of invincibility, have often been the undoing of civilizations.
While I appreciate your patronizing me, I have always found that those who answer the way you have throughout this thread have no real idea of why they believe what they believe. You can sit in your world, and I'll stay in the real one. You have no idea what I have or have not done. You obviously think that anyone with different beliefs than you is wrong, and stupid. I don't share that belief. Attack me personally all you wish, as I'm neither 12 nor an idiot, and I'm perfectly capable of handling it. In my experience, those with nothing left to attack always do that. I'm sure you're very happy, obviously having as you do so much undirected (or misdirected) anger and hatred in you. In exchange for your condescension, I'll offer you my pity. I truly do feel sorry for you.
So that what you're saying is, if I read your post correctly, that no matter what justifications *exist* for going to war with Saddam, and no matter how many of those other than the two you mentioned got press before the war started, you picked those two reasons, decided they weren't valid, and thus decried the entire war. The suffering of the Iraqi people didn't factor into your equation, neither did the undisputed fact that Saddam Hussein personally caused both of the world's largest oil spills, on purpose. You forget that Saddam has gone on record attempting to buy nuclear materials from France, and also forgot that French scientists were hired by Saddam for nuclear research. Either you've forgotten that stuff, or you just don't care. You're entitled to not care about that stuff, but please allow others of us *to* care. The reasons you mentioned were the ones the *public* grabbed onto most quickly, but in reality public opinion rarely influences high level policy decisions, no matter who is in office. They weren't the only reasons given, nor are they the only valid reasons for dismantling the Iraqi regime. Saddam went on record as an opponent of the U.S. LONG before 2001. Should you ask whether we should go around liberating other countries from oppressive regimes, my answer is an unequivocal yes. No one else will do it, they're all just as content with a global status quo of 'civilized countries over here, hellhole dictatorships over there' as you are. Why did I (not randomly) compare us to other countries? Not for the reason you supposed. Rather than gloating about our supremacy, I was suggesting (apparently a bit too subtly) that whatever problems we have here, there are many countries where our problems would seem a relief. Does that mean we shouldn't try to make our country better? Of course not. But perhaps you could try to appreciate what we *do* have, rather than being so obviously full of vitriol over what we do not.
Meaning people would have died who otherwise would have lived. Sudden short-term spikes in the price of power can't be easily dealt with since so much of the components of electrical demand can't (quickly) be changed other than by drastic measures such as turning off the air conditioning.
Again, what about the people who don't even HAVE a/c? Again, you apparently don't care about them. Why are their lives worthless, while those who have a/c but can't use it temporarily are not? You think all old people have a/c? You think everyone makes it to their 'appointed time' if the government steps in?
Sorry to rain on your libertarian parade, but anybody in a democratic republic who would allow somebody like Enron to kill old people doesn't deserve anybody's vote.
Again you bring libertarianism into it. Then you callously suggest through implication that libertarians would allow Enron to break the law and thus cause people's deaths. Nice spin. Whatever Enron did, i guarnatee you it wasn't libertarians in power who did nothing to stop it. I can also guarantee you that those in power who looked the other way weren't all Republican, they were just all bought. You are in a democratic republic, and you 'allowed Enron to kill old people'....does that mean you don't deserve a vote? Or does it just pain you too much to admit that too much government interference only makes things worse for more people? How are people in CA going to feel when their state government goes bankrupt? Is that a better long-term solution than just fixing problems within the energy industry? Bailouts don't work. They are stopgap measures at best. No matter what we do, people will die before their 'appointed time'. No amount of government interference (save forcing everyone to live like veal calves) is ever going to eradicate untimely death. Is it better, in your estimation, to make life worse for everyone in order to protect a few? At what point does that become invalid, if any? Is our government's responsibility to make sure everyone is completely safe and happy? Is that what you believe our government was designed for?
Why is it considered 'cruel' or 'cold' to believe that natural selection is a stronger force than national government?
Whatever problems California's government is undergoing now, the fact is that had they simply passed through all of the cost of electricity on the spot market to the end-user, people would have DIED before the market 'fixed the problem'.
Um. Meaning what? People aren't dying in CA now? People haven't always had air conditioning, you know. People haven't always had electricity. Somehow they managed for thousands of years without it. People die. People get hurt. That's harsh, but reality often is. This misguided notion that somehow we can preserve all life and avoid all unpleasantness is pervasive and attractive, but ultimately bullshit. There is no such thing as a life without risk. You also apparently don't care about people who are too poor to afford electricity, or air conditioning. They die every year, here in TX as well as in CA and other states. Are the deaths of those with more money more tragic?
Who said the market was supposed to fix the problem? I never did. I never suggested what the solution could be, I just questioned your assertions.
There's a certain percentage of electric demand which is elastic, and a certain percentage which is inelastic; pretending that a simple libertarian anarchic solution would have solved everything is pretty damn juvenile.
Who pretended that? I never said anything about solutions, libertarian or otherwise. Not to mention the fact that 'libertarian' and 'anarchic' are not analogous, not even close.
Artificially propping up industries is no more helpful than artificially limiting them. Government interference can be good, in small doses, but lethal in large ones. California is experiencing this, and while I doubt it, I hope they will learn from it. As you've said, Texas has not yet forced its power companies to divest. Maybe that will save us, at any rate I hope it will. I also hope that having our own grid will do something to help, as well, as I just heard on the news this morning that we haven't ever pushed it beyond 70% capacity.
Your basic premise is absolutely correct, but I'd quibble on the particulars of which party stands for what.
Why? They change about every 30 years anyhow. The key is that neither party really wants change, they only want to edge each other out in the power grab. Neither party cares about you. Neither party is dedicated to making your life better, unless you are a major PAC or other political contributor. What does it matter what each party is supposedly 'for' when the actions of both show very clearly that they care for nothing beyond grabbing and consolidating power and influence? The answer to this country's problems does not lie in either the Republican or the Democratic party.
And yes, your second part about the dire welfare problem, as it stands, is FUD. There are some serious logical and factual problems with your premise and your assumptions. Keep working on it.
I'm getting really sick of replies like this. Can you not read my tagline? Or do you just choose to ignore it? If you bother telling me that I have serious factual and logical errors, why do you not bother to say what they are? I'm sick and fucking tired of people saying that I can't possibly be right while offering NO evidence to the contrary. Mind you, you could very well be correct. I could very well have errors in my thinking. However, just saying I do doesn't point them out. I 'keep working' on *all* my beliefs, but in order to change what I believe, something which contradicts it yet has internal consistency and logic behind it must be offered. Fewer people are footing the bill for this country, part of which includes subsidies for a larger and larger part of those who are NOT footing the bill. Please tell me how this is a sustainable trend. Don't say 'It just is' and don't say 'There are a number of reasons, none of which I'm going to state.' If you can't be bothered to do that, then don't bother to reply at all. ('you' not directly referring to parent poster in this instance, but to anyone who disagrees with me)
I won't just say you're wrong, I'll just say you're amazingly ignorant.
I'll just say you're actually a talking plant. Does that make it true?
As far as "proving" anything, very funny. I could spend an hour or so digging up objective evidence to back up all those assertions and show where yours are quite mistaken, but I'm fairly confident it wouldn't change your mind a bit.
Far from spending an hour to refute all of them, you refused to spend even 1 minute to try and refute *one* of them. Nice job! If you want to change my mind, personal attacks certainly aren't going to do it. If your goal was *really* to change my mind, you should have at least *attempted* to provide something besides 'I'm right and you're wrong and I don't care what you say.'
You'd cast doubt on the sources
You'd have to provide some first.
or find some dodgy counter-claim from Fox News or just plain not get it or not care, and it would never end.
Change Fox News to CNN and I could say the same about you. That's what a debate is. Claim and counter-claim. No, you're not going to simply say 'I *could* prove you wrong but I choose not to but believe me I could!' and have me believe that, because if I were to base my opinions on such flimsy evidence, I'd be exactly the sheep those in power want me to. As I said before, if you want to convince me, show me some proof. If you can't do that, why bother saying you can?
No, if you're interested in any of those things, why don't you try playing devil's advocate against yourself and do a little Google research? I do that from time to time. It's good exercise.
What makes you think I don't? Nice to know you're qualified to assert what I do or do not do, unrelated to what I've said.
And for the record, I am a fiscally conservative Libertarian who hates the Democrats as well as the Republicans. The Dems are guilty of going along with all of the bullshit of the past few years, but they were not the creative "brains" behind it, and this administration has had more leeway to impose its whim than any in my lifetime.
I know you meant 'any administration in the U.S.', but I must point out to you that taken from a world-wide perspective, there are several regimes out there with absolute control, such as Libya, China, North Korea, Singapore....those administrations have MUCH more power to impose their will on their people than ours does.
the Shrub is the worst president in at least 100 years.
That's a fairly bold statement. Care to back it up? Of course not. All you will say is you don't like him, you don't like the war, etc etc etc, quoting word for word from the 'bush = everything bad' book that's been distributed to everyone who doesn't like him. See, if you reread my post, I'm not anywhere saying that Bush is a great guy, or a great president, and I didn't vote for him, either. I'm just pointing out that by making Bush the focus of all your ire, you're missing out on quite a bit.
Try it out - pick some arbitrary measure and compare.
Ok. Arbitrary measure: tax increases.
George Bush sr. - largest tax increase in history
Bill Clinton - largest tax increase in history, followed by a NEW largest tax increase in history.
George W. Bush - cut taxes, included a $400 handout to those making under 30k/year and with at least one kid
well, that's one arbitrary measure by which he beats his father and his predecessor. Oops, I wasn't sposed to do that, was I?
Do I like the president? No. But I didn't like Bill Clinton, either, and I still resented the conservative's attempts to make everything on earth his fault. Why should I do less for George W. Bush? I don't have to like our current president to understand that he is not responsible for everything, and not even for everything that the government does. I also love my country enough to know that even 8 years under a bad president is better than 1 year under a tyrannical
The grim reality is, the government is always to blame when something like this happens. This is because our government has taken upon itself to try and be everything to everyone and do everything. The california government would surely have taken the credit, had their ill-considered plan worked. When it did not, they bear the brunt of the blame. California never should have subsidized electricity. You say it would have been political suicide not to, but now it has turned into political suicide PLUS major problems with power. You can not tell me that no one in the california government knew what was going on. They simply did not speak up out of fear or self-interest. This makes the california government share the blame. Enron has already paid quite a heavy price for its illegal practices. They *do* bear their portion of the responsibility, of course, but the california government cannot avoid taking its share of responsibility. Now we're facing a similar situation in Texas, with the only exception being that we have our own power grid, which is a variable that I am not informed enough to be able to take into account. I'm just afraid that we're going to have more blackouts here, and our state debt will skyrocket, and that our government will try to push the blame on someone else, although it wouldn't be enron. If (as has been stated) *no one* in CA thought that additional plants would be neccessary, when history has shown that they were, where would *you* say the fault lies? Isn't there some sort of governmental body that is assigned to make those kinds of decisions?
Excellent post, with many many good points. However, I must say that the two-party system we have generally leaves the majority of US citizens with no voice. If you choose to support the Democrats, you are asking for more social legislation and even larger government and even more taxes, however if you support the Republicans, you are asking for even MORE social legislation, draconian anti-competitiveness measures, and an attempted reshaping of society into an image the Republicans are comfortable with. Either way, freedom advocates lose. Neither party is interested in representing the people it claims to, and neither party fields candidates I can agree with. Their stranglehold on the election process, however, is likely to continue for the forseeable future. I wonder how many people know that the founding fathers themselves wanted a more open election process?
It is sobering to realize that the approx. 40% of people who don't pay taxes in this country are also the people who receive most government handouts, and are thus not likely to *ever* pay taxes. If that number continues to go up, as most liberals want it to, there will come a time when the remaining taxpayers *cannot* support the burden of the non-taxpayers and will either flee the country, or will become non-taxpayers themselves, and either way this country will be fucked. People can't seem to see past their petty squabbles and personal dislikes to turn this situation around, however, and most liberals *and* conservatives I have personally known don't believe such a thing will ever happen. Our leaders continue to fight for their own personal power and influence and to ignore the true problems facing our country. The problem is, money has to come from *somewhere*, and unless something is done, we're going to first turn most of our citizens into subsistence level government dependants, and then into dead people as the government collapses under its own bloated weight and there is no longer a welfare bureau or anyone handing out or honoring food stamps. I know many will label this part of my post FUD, yet the mere fact that something may cause fear, uncertainty, or doubt is no reason to believe it does not exist. Complacency has long been a camouflage for rot, and it will be the death of our society if we aren't careful.
Refusing in this sense probably means:
Arguing against building a power plant in the face of information that would lead one to think they were required.
If there was no information to say they were required, no one ever refused to build one, they just never saw the need and it never made debate.
I would define refuse as "2 a : to show or express unwillingness to do or comply with"
Using this definition, it is not neccessary to have information showing plants were required, it is simply enough to show that there was stated unwillingness to build any. In this case, we would need to know if any proposals were considered by the companies themselves, and then rejected. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination to see if that holds true. However, if even one company made a decision *not* to build a plant, based on financial or any other grounds, that would constitute refusal...but not by the state itself, by the people who would foot the bill. If there was no question as to whether to build or not, then there was no refusal to do so, in my opinion, even though the literal definition only calls for expression of unwillingness, which a simple "We are not going to build any new plants" in a press release from a power company would satisfy.
However, the poster never did reveal any sources of this 'lie' beyond his own imagination, so I must conclude that it was made up by the original poster, and not by conservatives. Also please note that I really don't care if conservatives *or* liberals are caught in a lie, I'd just like to know for sure that they were before making fun of them for it.
Well said. I guess I should have concentrated more on the sources for the grandparent's post, as I really haven't heard anything (before today) about california refusing to build new plants, the way I heard it on Limbaugh's show was just that the state agreed to make up the difference between what consumers paid and what companies charged, and that's a big reason there's so large a state deficit. From what I can tell (although I am by *no* means all-aware or anything) the grandparent was building a straw man to knock down based on his/her opinions on what a conservative *might* say. He appeared to attribute it to Limbaugh without actually doing so, which precludes the 'Hey Limbaugh never said that' argument, so I was just trying to point out flaws in his/her post. I really don't know what went on in CA, but I *do* know that where I live, in Texas, we're most likely going to experience a variant of it. I suppose my experiences following the deregulation here may allow me to provide better analysis.
You don't need to suck up power (pollute more by making fossil fuel power plants work extra hard) to prove something that's already obvious.
What if we use solar power to do it? How about hydroelectric? What makes it unneccessary? Your feelings? How are you qualified to judge what is unneccessary to someone else? Why are your environmental beliefs any more important that someone else's high uptime beliefs? You've already shown that you are no expert in matters of electricity generation, so why should your views on consumption prevail over an individual's beliefs on the value of uptime? What qualifies you to quantify the relative merits of each and decide which is more important? I'm not questioning your right to believe whatever you like, but why should others suddenly change their behavior because of what you believe? Would you change your behavior because of the religious beliefs of someone else? What constitutes 'needless' in your opinion? I know it may seem like I'm attacking you here, however I make no distinction between environmental and religious evangelism, and though I personally support anyone's right to do either, I've always wondered why the former is almost universally tolerated while the latter is almost universally reviled. I'm honestly curious.
(In case anyone is wondering, I also class vegetarian evangalism the same, along with any other evangelism that requires me to substantially change my lifestyle in return for miniscule or speculative rewards in some unspecified future time.)