So you are saying that it's better that the US is now killing the Iraqis, rather than Saddam. Got it.
Firstly, they are killing each other in rather large numbers.
Secondly, what Atilla's post was getting at is that yes, it was progress to get rid of Saddam. I don't understand how you can debate that point.
Bush and Cheney were morons, otherwise they would never have been so gung-ho over the Irak thing. Everyone who knew a bit of history knew that once Saddam was gone, Irak was going to go down in civil war. But arguably, the Americans have actually made a very good job of keeping the thing from melting down. And gave the country a chance that would not be there if Saddam or his crazy son were still in power. All of this has cost the US a lot of lives and money. For very little return.
This right here honestly. War costs lives. Freedom and even the attempt at freedom costs lives. That's simply the way it is. The people who bemoan what happened never seem to want to address the flip side of their argument. I'm not saying the US going there was awesome, but if we're going to say it was the great crime of the 21st century then we damned sure need to answer the question of would Iraq be better off now if the US hadn't gone there?
There's every reason to believe that Saddam would still be in power. There's every reason to believe that he still would have wiped out large numbers of his own people to stay that way and no reason to believe that eventually he wouldn't have taken another look at Kuwait or another neighbor.
Is Iraq better off now and more importantly likely to be better off in the future because of what happened over the last 10 years? Probably so.
So they aren't ripping off GTA anymore, and moving on to ripping off Prototype and Infamous instead?
If by ripping off GTA you mean 'Vastly improving upon' then yes. If you mean 'Copying the flaming dirt of a dating your male cousin simulator' that GTA4 was, then no.
Why is this modded flamebait? I tend to view this as a reactionary policy done by a person who clearly thinks far too much of his establishment. That's his right. Since I view his policy in that light it's my right to go somewhere else. The policy also strikes me as hypocritical as I'd be willing to bet that he has several cameras and probably audio monitoring throughout the establishment (also his right) and yet wants to ban others from doing the same thing.
It reminds me of those few gun stores where they ban their customers from carrying a gun while their staff is openly carrying. Sure, it's their right to ban such but it's still hypocritical.
How is it hypocritical for gunshop owners to ban the carrying of loaded guns in the shop? You think the gunshop staff is going to rob YOU at gunpoint?
It's hypocritical to ban the carrying of guns in a shop staffed by people carrying guns. Doubly so since I'd imagine that if asked they'd probably say that bans on concealed carry aren't good, and they they do it in their store.
It's an easy example of "Do as I say but not as I do."
Why is this modded flamebait? I tend to view this as a reactionary policy done by a person who clearly thinks far too much of his establishment. That's his right. Since I view his policy in that light it's my right to go somewhere else. The policy also strikes me as hypocritical as I'd be willing to bet that he has several cameras and probably audio monitoring throughout the establishment (also his right) and yet wants to ban others from doing the same thing.
It reminds me of those few gun stores where they ban their customers from carrying a gun while their staff is openly carrying. Sure, it's their right to ban such but it's still hypocritical.
How terrible - we go back to spending levels of 2011! It was like we were a third world then!
Not only that but if Government spending, which is ultimately wealth taken out of the economy after the productive parts of the economy produced it, is so bloody important that we're all going to starve and die if it is lost then that is both extremely sad and scary.
This very thing led to factory workers and store clerks being more valued in the Soviet Union than engineers. You were treated better and paid better despite being more of a drone. People still became engineers. They just did so DESPITE of the economic incentives in place.
Uh huh. It had nothing at all to do with the benefits of being a higher member of the party or working in areas that were viewed as being more important by the party. If you think that there was ever a time when a factory worker or a store clerk was considered more valuable than engineers then you're either deluding yourself or falling prey to propaganda.
You may like the factory worker or store clerk but the undeniable fact is that it is several times easier to replace one of them than it is to replace the engineer. That is practically the very definition of what makes one more valuable when combined with the contribution they can make. To deny that is to deny basic logic.
However, my point is still valid. Corporations do not declare war. Governments do. If one is upset at the power that a corporation can wield through government it makes no sense to call for larger and more powerful government, as some do, to counter that. It makes more sense to call for a less powerful government that can't be used in that way.
Hard to imagine? Sure. But that's exactly what's been going on for years now. The reason is there is no other currency the world is worrying to bet their asses on (courtesy of Europe dicking up their own economies and the Euro along with it). So everyone might bite their tongues in the process but they will suck it up in the process. Oh and everyone wants to devalue their currency these days so they can export more.
True, it has maintained value far better than I would have imagined given Fed's actions. Of course, it is still loosing value but as you point out not as fast as it would or ought to simply because where else are people going to go? That alone is a damned sad thing to say, no?
I was going to say the same thing, because there is a meme out there that the CPI leaves out some key things. Then I did some research, and it appears that the meme is actually a lie.
I suggest you do some research on your own. There are some issues with the CPI. Namely, the exact goods in each category can change. For example, for "meat" they might use "filet migon" one time and then "t-bone steak" the next. They claim that they do that because the CPI reflects consumer purchasing habits, and as costs go up, consumers purchase less expensive alternatives.
I'll look into it. The main issues as I recall are that they tend to leave out energy and food, though perhaps not as extensively as believed, when they didn't used to.
lol, you can talk about the price of gas but the inflation numbers are not subject to debate. If you refuse to "trust" them, then there's nothing to discuss because reality obviously doesn't mean anything to you.
And FYI...the value of the dollar is based on the value people around the world choose to put into it. There's no automatic adjustment that kicks in because the government prints money.
It would be more accurate to say that the CPI has been tweaked, to be kind, to understate the problem. This is well known. You are right that there is no automatic adjustment to the value of the dollar but it is hard to imagine it retaining value when the Fed is 'printing' them like there's no tomorrow.
My view is that I'd love to live in a world where the greatest threat comes from business rather than government.
You already do, you just don't realize it yet
In the 20th Century governments killed some 100 million (at least) people, usually their own. However much damage even the largest corporations have done isn't even on the same planet with that scale. Also, let me know when corporations can declare war and draft people.
For years we have been fed the myth of limited government, a notion that the Government is the biggest threat to our liberty. The shills were blatant, they openly longed for the government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. But the moment the government becomes weaker than a strong person, he will promptly drown the government. Don't forget, companies are people my friend. At that point the greatest threat to our liberty would be those ungovernable companies. They are too big to jail. They can do anything they want and you can't do anything about it.
Free markets moderated by Democracy. B 4th July 1776. D Oct 2008. RIP.
I'll agree with your statements right after companies have the power to declare war, operate jails, pass laws and enforce them with deadly force.
While I'm sure there might possibly be some rare exception to this, in general if you piss off a company doing something they say you shouldn't they may try and sue you and that's it. You do what a government says you shouldn't, they shoot you in the face. Almost the entirety of the power that even the largest corporation wields is wielded through government. You want weaker companies and corporations? Call for weaker, smaller and more manageable government.
Because piles and piles of "money" created out of thin air won't eventually come home to roost?
Given the CPI is full of holes and has been ever since it was decided to leave out the things probably most important to people, food and energy, I can't say that I have much faith in it. Given the price of gas was about 1.86USD a few years ago and these days flirts with nearly twice that I'd say that's something. Toss in reduced value of the dollar you've got, well clearly not inflation right?
Yep. As you alluded, it's not true that the atmosphere is uniformly to "try to minimize enforcement of immigration law". The atmosphere is that the law is pretty much dialed to 11 for people who are pursuing the stay here legally and have a paper trail, and dialed down for people where you don't even know who they are. It is, pretty much, entirely opposite of what it should be. The way things are promotes bureaucratic laziness and weight-throwing. I'd be all for a situation when folks who bother to hire an immigration lawyer and have everything in order were treated a bit better at least until the undocumented immigration issue is somehow sorted out, if there were ever a way to do so.
This! This! Ten thousand times this!
When we were trying to get my wife here and people around me learned just what a hate storm that was I lost track of the number of times people joked that I could just sneak her across the southern border and it'd be a hundred times easier. Getting her there would have been hard but yes, once across things would have been easy(ier).
And then when Obama came out and said that they were going to make it easier for families who were separated by immigration status to be together I was happy for half a nanosecond. Until I realized what that meant and was able to confirm it. The new program was only for people who had gotten here illegally. People like us trying to do it legally were just told to suck it up and wait as the new program increased our delays.
Why bother? Not only won't they enforce immigration laws, they outright sue state and town PDs who attempt to do so to force them to stop.
Visas? Immigration? Meh, c'mon in, apply for welfare, and retire. Only those of us dumb enough to work for a living as natural born citizens have anything to complain about here.
Point of order. They only do that kind of "inviting" for those groups likely to be politically useful. Those who are more likely to be less politically useful have to go through hell and half of California to get here.
Or to put it another way, they don't bother to correctly enforce land border security but will stringently enforce air and sea borders (except for those coming from Cuba). You wouldn't believe what it takes to come here legally if you can't just walk across the border.
I admittedly have mixed feelings about such things. However, I can't help put point out that such a move will likely gut the IT industry of anything but jobs at the very top and the very bottom. I've been at companies where most of the staff was on H-1Bs. They were and are my friends this is true. However, that doesn't change the fact that the company in question and others was hiring them not because of the stated "we cant' get Americans for these jobs!" but because they were cheaper and beholden to the company. Period. I also don't want to imply that they sucked or were unqualified. They were no more or less qualified than the average domestic person. But they were cheaper for certain.
Like they actually did. It wasn't just pressure from the implied evil gun advocates that got them to took down the list. It was the two break-ins directly related to the list and likely the word from their corporate lawyers that yes, they could be held liable for such reckless endangerment.
Well, if your idea of protecting you and yours is surrender and give them what they want I hope that always works out for you. I truly hope that someday "what they want" is never your daughters (if any) and/or wife. What then?
You're free to make whatever choice you like. I won't even try to change your mind as you've clearly already made your decision. Good luck with it.
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.
I should grow up?
You do know that Bushmaster were advertising the AR15 with the slogan "consider your man card reissued"?
I'm just assuming they know their market.
Yes, and I'm also familiar with the concept of marketing. Your statement on the other hand was not marketing or anything like it but was intended to belittle and propagate stereotypes. So yes. Grow up.
You are making a huge pile of assumptions here while also completely ignoring my point. A gun ban will disarm only the law abiding. Period. That isn't a matter for debate unless you have some evidence that says criminals will perform the highly illogical act of rushing to turn in their weapons.
Reading your entire comment and considering that you won't even keep a bloody bow in your house seems to indicate to me that you've got giant projection issues. Is it we who are armed who want to run around killing people or are you merely projecting your own issues on to us? You won't even trust yourself with a bow in the house so I have to wonder. You also make the, in my opinion, irrational decision of living in what you call the country with the highest violent crime rate as a defenseless sheep.
I hope that I never have to harm another person for any reason at all. I also hope that no one is depending on you for their safety and security. Your very first duty as a parent, if you are one, is to protect and defend your children and family. I guess in your case that will mean calling the police and praying to God they get their in time to do more than just fill out the paperwork.
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, they are killing each other in rather large numbers.
Secondly, what Atilla's post was getting at is that yes, it was progress to get rid of Saddam. I don't understand how you can debate that point.
Bush and Cheney were morons, otherwise they would never have been so gung-ho over the Irak thing. Everyone who knew a bit of history knew that once Saddam was gone, Irak was going to go down in civil war. But arguably, the Americans have actually made a very good job of keeping the thing from melting down. And gave the country a chance that would not be there if Saddam or his crazy son were still in power. All of this has cost the US a lot of lives and money. For very little return.
This right here honestly. War costs lives. Freedom and even the attempt at freedom costs lives. That's simply the way it is. The people who bemoan what happened never seem to want to address the flip side of their argument. I'm not saying the US going there was awesome, but if we're going to say it was the great crime of the 21st century then we damned sure need to answer the question of would Iraq be better off now if the US hadn't gone there?
There's every reason to believe that Saddam would still be in power. There's every reason to believe that he still would have wiped out large numbers of his own people to stay that way and no reason to believe that eventually he wouldn't have taken another look at Kuwait or another neighbor.
Is Iraq better off now and more importantly likely to be better off in the future because of what happened over the last 10 years? Probably so.
What's wrong with dating your male cousin? It could have been worse, for example dating your female uncle...
Well, nothing if that's what you're into I suppose. :D
So they aren't ripping off GTA anymore, and moving on to ripping off Prototype and Infamous instead?
If by ripping off GTA you mean 'Vastly improving upon' then yes. If you mean 'Copying the flaming dirt of a dating your male cousin simulator' that GTA4 was, then no.
Because both ends of the landline call need to be regulated. It has nothing to do with the computer aspect of it.
And aren't all you guys cheering on regulation the same people who would cry murder if they were trying to regulate the Internet?
Yes, 100 million gun owners all have them because they wish their penises were longer.
So, Anonymous Coward, if it has nothing to do with your small penis, if all your guns were bright pink you'd be perfectly find with that?
You don't have to have a small penis to not like bright pink as a color, or a penis at all. :P
That said, if people only own guns to make their penis feel bigger then why do women own them? Old men?
Also, bright pink is a really impractical color for a gun but it'll do the job no matter what color it is.
And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.
Why is this modded flamebait? I tend to view this as a reactionary policy done by a person who clearly thinks far too much of his establishment. That's his right. Since I view his policy in that light it's my right to go somewhere else. The policy also strikes me as hypocritical as I'd be willing to bet that he has several cameras and probably audio monitoring throughout the establishment (also his right) and yet wants to ban others from doing the same thing.
It reminds me of those few gun stores where they ban their customers from carrying a gun while their staff is openly carrying. Sure, it's their right to ban such but it's still hypocritical.
How is it hypocritical for gunshop owners to ban the carrying of loaded guns in the shop? You think the gunshop staff is going to rob YOU at gunpoint?
It's hypocritical to ban the carrying of guns in a shop staffed by people carrying guns. Doubly so since I'd imagine that if asked they'd probably say that bans on concealed carry aren't good, and they they do it in their store.
It's an easy example of "Do as I say but not as I do."
And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.
Why is this modded flamebait? I tend to view this as a reactionary policy done by a person who clearly thinks far too much of his establishment. That's his right. Since I view his policy in that light it's my right to go somewhere else. The policy also strikes me as hypocritical as I'd be willing to bet that he has several cameras and probably audio monitoring throughout the establishment (also his right) and yet wants to ban others from doing the same thing.
It reminds me of those few gun stores where they ban their customers from carrying a gun while their staff is openly carrying. Sure, it's their right to ban such but it's still hypocritical.
How terrible - we go back to spending levels of 2011! It was like we were a third world then!
Not only that but if Government spending, which is ultimately wealth taken out of the economy after the productive parts of the economy produced it, is so bloody important that we're all going to starve and die if it is lost then that is both extremely sad and scary.
This very thing led to factory workers and store clerks being more valued in the Soviet Union than engineers. You were treated better and paid better despite being more of a drone. People still became engineers. They just did so DESPITE of the economic incentives in place.
Uh huh. It had nothing at all to do with the benefits of being a higher member of the party or working in areas that were viewed as being more important by the party. If you think that there was ever a time when a factory worker or a store clerk was considered more valuable than engineers then you're either deluding yourself or falling prey to propaganda.
You may like the factory worker or store clerk but the undeniable fact is that it is several times easier to replace one of them than it is to replace the engineer. That is practically the very definition of what makes one more valuable when combined with the contribution they can make. To deny that is to deny basic logic.
However, my point is still valid. Corporations do not declare war. Governments do. If one is upset at the power that a corporation can wield through government it makes no sense to call for larger and more powerful government, as some do, to counter that. It makes more sense to call for a less powerful government that can't be used in that way.
Hard to imagine? Sure. But that's exactly what's been going on for years now. The reason is there is no other currency the world is worrying to bet their asses on (courtesy of Europe dicking up their own economies and the Euro along with it). So everyone might bite their tongues in the process but they will suck it up in the process. Oh and everyone wants to devalue their currency these days so they can export more.
True, it has maintained value far better than I would have imagined given Fed's actions. Of course, it is still loosing value but as you point out not as fast as it would or ought to simply because where else are people going to go? That alone is a damned sad thing to say, no?
I was going to say the same thing, because there is a meme out there that the CPI leaves out some key things. Then I did some research, and it appears that the meme is actually a lie.
http://www.bls.gov/dolfaq/bls_ques3.htm
I suggest you do some research on your own. There are some issues with the CPI. Namely, the exact goods in each category can change. For example, for "meat" they might use "filet migon" one time and then "t-bone steak" the next. They claim that they do that because the CPI reflects consumer purchasing habits, and as costs go up, consumers purchase less expensive alternatives.
I'll look into it. The main issues as I recall are that they tend to leave out energy and food, though perhaps not as extensively as believed, when they didn't used to.
lol, you can talk about the price of gas but the inflation numbers are not subject to debate. If you refuse to "trust" them, then there's nothing to discuss because reality obviously doesn't mean anything to you.
And FYI...the value of the dollar is based on the value people around the world choose to put into it. There's no automatic adjustment that kicks in because the government prints money.
It would be more accurate to say that the CPI has been tweaked, to be kind, to understate the problem. This is well known. You are right that there is no automatic adjustment to the value of the dollar but it is hard to imagine it retaining value when the Fed is 'printing' them like there's no tomorrow.
My view is that I'd love to live in a world where the greatest threat comes from business rather than government.
You already do, you just don't realize it yet
In the 20th Century governments killed some 100 million (at least) people, usually their own. However much damage even the largest corporations have done isn't even on the same planet with that scale. Also, let me know when corporations can declare war and draft people.
For years we have been fed the myth of limited government, a notion that the Government is the biggest threat to our liberty. The shills were blatant, they openly longed for the government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. But the moment the government becomes weaker than a strong person, he will promptly drown the government. Don't forget, companies are people my friend. At that point the greatest threat to our liberty would be those ungovernable companies. They are too big to jail. They can do anything they want and you can't do anything about it.
Free markets moderated by Democracy. B 4th July 1776. D Oct 2008. RIP.
I'll agree with your statements right after companies have the power to declare war, operate jails, pass laws and enforce them with deadly force.
While I'm sure there might possibly be some rare exception to this, in general if you piss off a company doing something they say you shouldn't they may try and sue you and that's it. You do what a government says you shouldn't, they shoot you in the face. Almost the entirety of the power that even the largest corporation wields is wielded through government. You want weaker companies and corporations? Call for weaker, smaller and more manageable government.
Because piles and piles of "money" created out of thin air won't eventually come home to roost?
Given the CPI is full of holes and has been ever since it was decided to leave out the things probably most important to people, food and energy, I can't say that I have much faith in it. Given the price of gas was about 1.86USD a few years ago and these days flirts with nearly twice that I'd say that's something. Toss in reduced value of the dollar you've got, well clearly not inflation right?
It's cool, bring on QE whatever we're on now.
Yep. As you alluded, it's not true that the atmosphere is uniformly to "try to minimize enforcement of immigration law". The atmosphere is that the law is pretty much dialed to 11 for people who are pursuing the stay here legally and have a paper trail, and dialed down for people where you don't even know who they are. It is, pretty much, entirely opposite of what it should be. The way things are promotes bureaucratic laziness and weight-throwing. I'd be all for a situation when folks who bother to hire an immigration lawyer and have everything in order were treated a bit better at least until the undocumented immigration issue is somehow sorted out, if there were ever a way to do so.
This! This! Ten thousand times this!
When we were trying to get my wife here and people around me learned just what a hate storm that was I lost track of the number of times people joked that I could just sneak her across the southern border and it'd be a hundred times easier. Getting her there would have been hard but yes, once across things would have been easy(ier).
And then when Obama came out and said that they were going to make it easier for families who were separated by immigration status to be together I was happy for half a nanosecond. Until I realized what that meant and was able to confirm it. The new program was only for people who had gotten here illegally. People like us trying to do it legally were just told to suck it up and wait as the new program increased our delays.
I wish they did that to green card caps, though.
Why bother? Not only won't they enforce immigration laws, they outright sue state and town PDs who attempt to do so to force them to stop.
Visas? Immigration? Meh, c'mon in, apply for welfare, and retire. Only those of us dumb enough to work for a living as natural born citizens have anything to complain about here.
Point of order. They only do that kind of "inviting" for those groups likely to be politically useful. Those who are more likely to be less politically useful have to go through hell and half of California to get here.
Or to put it another way, they don't bother to correctly enforce land border security but will stringently enforce air and sea borders (except for those coming from Cuba). You wouldn't believe what it takes to come here legally if you can't just walk across the border.
I admittedly have mixed feelings about such things. However, I can't help put point out that such a move will likely gut the IT industry of anything but jobs at the very top and the very bottom. I've been at companies where most of the staff was on H-1Bs. They were and are my friends this is true. However, that doesn't change the fact that the company in question and others was hiring them not because of the stated "we cant' get Americans for these jobs!" but because they were cheaper and beholden to the company. Period. I also don't want to imply that they sucked or were unqualified. They were no more or less qualified than the average domestic person. But they were cheaper for certain.
If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.
Why? Are you that fearful?
i have to say i agree
all a criminal would have to do is sit there wait till you leave and go get a few
http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/journal-news-map-listed-guns-permits-stolen-from-new-city-home-cops-say-1.4463741
Like they actually did. It wasn't just pressure from the implied evil gun advocates that got them to took down the list. It was the two break-ins directly related to the list and likely the word from their corporate lawyers that yes, they could be held liable for such reckless endangerment.
Well, if your idea of protecting you and yours is surrender and give them what they want I hope that always works out for you. I truly hope that someday "what they want" is never your daughters (if any) and/or wife. What then?
You're free to make whatever choice you like. I won't even try to change your mind as you've clearly already made your decision. Good luck with it.
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.
I should grow up?
You do know that Bushmaster were advertising the AR15 with the slogan "consider your man card reissued"?
I'm just assuming they know their market.
Yes, and I'm also familiar with the concept of marketing. Your statement on the other hand was not marketing or anything like it but was intended to belittle and propagate stereotypes. So yes. Grow up.
You are making a huge pile of assumptions here while also completely ignoring my point. A gun ban will disarm only the law abiding. Period. That isn't a matter for debate unless you have some evidence that says criminals will perform the highly illogical act of rushing to turn in their weapons.
Reading your entire comment and considering that you won't even keep a bloody bow in your house seems to indicate to me that you've got giant projection issues. Is it we who are armed who want to run around killing people or are you merely projecting your own issues on to us? You won't even trust yourself with a bow in the house so I have to wonder. You also make the, in my opinion, irrational decision of living in what you call the country with the highest violent crime rate as a defenseless sheep.
I hope that I never have to harm another person for any reason at all. I also hope that no one is depending on you for their safety and security. Your very first duty as a parent, if you are one, is to protect and defend your children and family. I guess in your case that will mean calling the police and praying to God they get their in time to do more than just fill out the paperwork.
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.