I would hardly call Obama a Moron. It's true that he has done all that and it is true that he has managed to convince everyone that he is different. It's like the guy who gets caught sleeping with his secretary by his wife and not only convinces her not to divorce him, but to allow him to keep the secretary as if nothing ever happened.
I can think of a lot of things to call Obama, a moron is not one of them.
First, Bush got us into those wars for reasons other then his daddy. The fact you even make that claim as if it was true shows how low your IQ must really be after being exposed to the I hate Bush bias for too long.
Second, Obama is not doing anything not already set in motion by Bush to get us out of those wars. In Iraq, Obama's big contribution was to rename the force classifications that would be left behind after combat troop withdraw under the Bush SOFA agreement.
Finally, there is not action done by Oboma that suggests he is in any way approaching anything differently other then word gimmicks. There has been no situation where Obama used negotiation where Bush had not. If there is, name it so I can learn of this major crisis. Obama has said firmly that Iran will not be allowed to become a nuclear power. If you take the rose colored glasses off, you will see the new boss is the same as the old, you just like to cheer for him more.
The advantage of Aircraft carriers is more to the mobility of them then any naval battle usage. It's the same reason why we put ICBMs on subs. The aircraft carrier can move to range of where a strategic air base is needed and we can assert air superiority in a combat field without ever needing to violate some other country's sovereignty or secure land within the combat zones.
They do have some drawbacks like the massive amounts of support and protection they require. But this is nothing compared to setting up and maintaining remote and forward air bases complete with mechanics, spare parts and so on every where we go. Actually, it is likely more efficient then that as when we abandon those bases, we will leave behind a lot of spent material and armaments built to defend the bases.
Think of Aircraft carriers not in the strict sense of naval operations like a battleship would be but in the sense of moving resources by naval operations. That is why they are so powerful, in the matter of days you can have a forward air base constructed and operational without ever stepping foot on foreign soil as long as you can have a flight path to the targets.
See my other reply. You are off on a side rant that pertains nothing to what I said.
No one said any votes were stolen, No one said that all people must vote for someone specific. If your vote is not actively working against any candidate, it is allow that candidate to win. Whether or not you want them to win is something you need to decide before throwing your vote away.
And that still leaves a little over 16k voters who chose Nader that you are conveniently not wanting to take into account. By your account, had Nader not run, then Gore would have had all of his base. Just because your argument that 3rd parties "steal" votes from candidate X or Y is invalid and unprovable is no reason to get pissy.
I do not have to take the other Nader voters into account. I did not say if Nader never ran, I said that the idea of voting third party if your guy doesn't look like or does look like he is going to win is a vote for the incumbent or in this case, the guy you did not want to win. There will be people who would have never voted for Bush or Gore, I am only concerned with the people who thought their vote didn't count so they voted for nader. You are trying to work something into this that was never said.
First, I have not pulled any numbers out of the air. I have cited my source. You have thrown hypothetical arguments about past events around like they are going out of style. If you want to "BELIEVE" that had Nader chosen not to run, Gore would have won, then that's fine. But don't go around acting as though it is factual, considering how there is no way to prove or disprove it.
You have put numbers into the discussion that do not belong. I never said if no one voted for Nader. I said if you voted for him and wanted Bush to lose, his win was because you didn't vote against Bush. Voting for a third party who has no chance at winning is allowing the guy you want to lose to win.
Your insistance on this being about Nader not running is a fallacy existing only in your mind too. I never said anything of the sort, I confined my target to the people who thought Gore would win and their vote for Nader wouldn't matter. If just 1% of Nader's voters where if that nature and voted for Gore instead, Gore would have won the election in 2000. If everyone who voted for Nader did not care if Bush or Gore won, then it doesn't matter. But the news coming out of Florida seemed to imply a significant amount of people who voted for Nader did so thinking Gore was going to win and did not want Bush to win.
You want to vote for X, strictly out of fear that someone else may win, fine. I am going to be a man and vote my conscience. I have one life to live, and I am not going to spend it voting for someone I don't want to represent me just to appease everyone's fears.
You go ahead and vote for whoever you wish. You have to reconcile with yourself the fact that not voting against someone is allowing that someone to win. If you are perfectly fine with 4 more years of Obama, then vote for anyone other then Romeny, if you are troubled about 4 years of Romney, then vote Obama. Anything else is letting the guy you do not want to actually win. Especially when you waste your vote on a third party candidate who even if they could win, doesn't have any support in congress and would be more of a joke for a president than Carter was when the democrats refused to support him in congress. A third party president would not get anything accomplished and the best way to unite the dems and repubs would be to put one into office.
All they have to do to make profit is make it cheaper then current forms of electricity. This will not be back yard inventor stuff where every home is powered by one built out of spare parts. It will be something sitting on a large site with power transmissions lines coming to it that is selling the electricity on a market. If it costs more to make then current forms, it will not be used. If it costs less, it will be implemented.
There is not reason to think something like this wouldn't be implemented by the competition. It's not like you are going to have a fusion reactor in your back yard. It would be a high energy device that transmits the electricity from point A to B through existing technology. The only difference might be the fuel a certain power generation plant uses.
Look, there was about 97k votes for Nader, Bush won Florida by 537 votes. If just 1% of Naders voters were voting for him because they thought Gore was going to take the state, that's 970 votes Gore could have gotten that he didn't. That would have upped Gores total to 433 more then Bush.
You don't have to pull numbers out of the air or pretend Nader didn't exist thinking no one would have voted for Nader. We are not concerned with all of Nader's voters. We are concerned only with the ones that decided not to vote against the guy they did not want and vote third party instead. Do you think that if people knew Bush was going to win by such a small margin, they would have not voted against him when 1% or less of Nader's votes could have kept him out? I'm pretty sure they would because quite a few people were pissed and saying that when they found out Bush won by such a small margin.
Hypothetical arguments using past events, where humans are involved, cannot be scientifically, or mathematically, proven.
And to ignore history without learning from it means we are doomed to repeat it. If you want the incumbent to stay, vote for him or vote third party, if you want them to lose, then vote for whoever is most likely to beat them. Any nonsense with vote third party because of no chance to beat the incumbent is a bullshit attempt to keep the incumbent and pad results for the third party. If someone is already going to vote third party, then fine, but lets not pretend it's noble to vote third party when you actively want someone out of office.
You do not think that enough people voting third party could change that always votes one way?
The only time that is remotely valid is if the area normally votes against the incumbent and you want the incumbent to win but go third party instead. And it is only valid because you wanted the incumbent to win- not because your vote didn't matter. If enough people follow the your lead, the heavily one way can easily become the other way for that election.
Any vote that isn't for a candidate capable of beating the incumbent allows the incumbent to stay in office. It is effectively voting for them. It's factually correct if you use simple tools like math. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader proved this a couple of times in recent history.
Here, lets play with this complicated math stuff. Suppose you have 10 voters. All anyone would need is 6 votes to have more then the incumbent to oust him. If those 6 votes are divided between someone likely to win and someone with no chance in hell of winning, the incumbent wins by default. Lets Say the incumbent only got 4 of those ten votes. The remaining 6 votes is split between two parties, that's 3 + 3 votes which would equal 6 votes, enough to oust the incumbent, but not for the same guy meaning the incumbent wins. Clinton became president without even half the country voting for him. Bush win the election in 2000 largely because what would have made the difference voted for Ralph Nader. Florida wouldn't have even been in question if the Nader raiders voted for Gore.
But do not take my word for it, look at the official results. In these results we see that Bush officially received 2,912,790 votes or 48.847% of the votes cast. Gore received 2,912,253 votes or 48.838% of the votes cast. There is a difference of 537 votes or.009%. Ralph Nader who's voters would have typically voted democrat had he not run, received 97,488 votes or 1.635% of the vote. Less then one quarter of Nader Votes could have gave us 4 years of Gore instead of Bush. Of course nether was the incumbent but it goes to show that voting for who you want to be president even though they have no chance in hell of winning allows who you do not want to be president to take or keep office.
In damage control, the least evil of the bunch, you have to vote against the biggest evil else you allow them to win. It is really that simple.
It's all tied to expense. The companies I work with/for are small shops with less then 50 employees who do not develop in house except for maybe their web page if you could count that. They instead rely on industry specific proprietary software. Some of this software will just work for everything they need so they do not budget the expense of someone upgrading it or the costs of purchasing the upgrades.
Usually after about 2-3 years, they drop the support contracts for it because nothing has gone wrong and they see it as an unneeded expense. Most of the software doesn't include upgrades in their support contracts either. They treat the computers and software a lot like a wrench or a hammer or a Television set, as long as the ones they have work, there is no big reason to buy another. They think buying upgrades is a lot like getting a New TV simply because the screen is 2 inches bigger.
Where they looking for all his email or all his email mentioning his research? I was under the impression it was only all concerning the research paid for by the government and not the the email tech support for his toaster oven.
No, what made both parties come together and work things out was having a republican congress and a democrat president. Both knew that in order for anything to be done, they had to temper their ideals.
And a vote for libertarian is a vote for the incumbent no matter how you look at it. If you don't mind 4 more years of Obama, then go right ahead. If you are like me and trying to pick the least of two evils who will do the least amount of damage, then determine who is the greatest evil and vote for the most likely person to beat them.
No. I think you might have tripped over all the but- but - but- replies I had to bother with.
Socialism brought us the 8 hour work day as apposed to the unions. Unions as in labor unionts came after as a direct result of the socialist movements. That's all I was saying.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. There is no reason to think all nuts are socialist now or it wasn't good for him to find it. I'm technically against both socialism (as it exists today) and unions (as they surpassed most of their usefulness and typically drag companies down creating a strain on the economy). But I will not say neither ever had good ideas. It is just that socialist and communists came up with the 8 hour day- not unions as was originally stated.
Because that way you understand each other. Because that way your eccentricities don't bother her so much, and vice versa. Because that way you can generally simultaneously do things that you enjoy doing and also spend time with the person you enjoy spending time with, rather than picking one or the other exclusively.
Or, it is a lot like masturbation without all the work being done by yourself?
All joking aside, I dated a girl who was almost exactly like I thought I was. I found several things out. First, I wasn't like I thought I was. There was a lot about me I didn't know. Second, and probably most importantly, I couldn't stand her after a short period of time being around each other. She had the same problems, we would eventually drive each other nutz to the point we started fighting/arguing. We made an arrangement so we would never go to bed mad at each other. I would go for a walk and she would go into the kitchen and make something. Perhaps if I like nature better, we might still be together.
Not really. In 1850, Australia was still part of England and that is where the 8 hour work day largely originated. Robert Owen is famous espousing his 8 hour working day and even set it in motion as a mill he operated in England. He is also famous for leaving England to attempt to start a socialist colony (New Harmony) in the US as early as 1825. It failed and was dissolved by 1829. To say or claim that the free masons of Australia did not know of him or his socialist goals is a stretch by all imaginable means.
I'm not sure that a freedom of expression is violated if someone or a company does not give you a venue or platform to express it. Or would you consider the 6 O'clock news to be violating your freedom of expression every time they do not do a story on one of your rantings?
I would put following a stupid law in a country you have offices in as less evil then not giving you a stage to vent your (illegal in those countries) expressions in that country. Now there are areas where google doesn't have offices at and should be criticized to some extent. But I do not think it rises to the level of evil. Evil would be killing someone who had no part in the expression over the contents of the expression.
Listen, the socialist political movements started in about 1832 or so in France. By 1840-1845- perhaps a bit later, socialism was the fashionable thing in Europe and spreading. It was these people who brought us the 8 hour work day. Marx was part of this movement and political affiliation before he wrote the communist manifesto. That work BTW, was a direct result of his frustrations over not being able to get his socialist agendas implemented politically. Marx carried the 8 hour work day with him in his turn to communism.
Until the turn of the century, labor unions did not exist as we know them today. What you had was political parties who claimed to be a union of workers who attempted to influence and seek reform through changes in and the creation of laws. They did have a lot of support of workers but they were not organized like a trade union or a shop union we know today.
This isn't a red scare, it's historical fact. It was these socialist and communists who brought us the 8 hour work day. The reference to Marx is simply a time frame and the connection to communism which didn't become a reality until after the socialists failed in implementing a lot of their reforms. Whether you think it is important or not is completely ancillary to this point.
I believe your own distorted presentation of history is misleading. The eight-hour workday was not an emergent property of depression era unemployment. The depression was simply fuel to an already existing fire. How legislation emerges is often as important as the emergence itself...
The depression had little do do with it other then FDR thinking he could use goals of the socialist and communist parties to spread the work around. There is no 8 hour work day in law at this time in the US as the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. What replaced it was overtime.
Your pointing to trade unions wanting a 10 hour work day is not an 8 hour work day and trade unions are different then labor unions of today. The adamson act was actually the US government's attempt to break a strike and force railroad engineers back to work. Again, it was government not the unions. It only covered a small portion of rail lines to boot. Your tripe about Henry ford while beneficial to the 8 hour work day, only supports my assertion that it wasn't because of unions.
As for the National labor union, it was a sibling of the first international which was born directly out of the socialist movement in Europe and was more of a political organization then what we would consider a labor union. It actually failed and disappeared when it insisted on participating in the electoral process in an attempt to influence government directly.
The rest of your argument actually supports the socialist and communist political movements I mentioned. They were created around 1832 and gained notoriety closer to 1840 or so. It was a world wide movement and included Marx who ended up with his communist manifesto mainly because he grew frustrated with the ineffectiveness of socialism through political means.
The Unions did not give us the 8 hour work day, socialism and communism did. The US Government tried to give us an 8 hour work day, but that failed.
lol.. They were created by them not just associated with them.
That is an undeniable fact. So what is exactly right. I didn't say it was a good or bad thing, just that the 8 hour day was brought to us by the socialist and communist political movements and FDR attempted to institute it in 1933 but it was ruled unconstitutional so overtime became a work around.
Does the appearance of truth bother you that much?
Mainstream media is a moniker that denotes from specialized and alternative media. Mainstream media is the media that is traditionally available. It is a legitimate term that is often misused but not in this case.
Actually, they do it all the time by keeping outdated and unsupported pieces of software around instead of updating to the latest and greatest for the sake of doing it. This can be open or closed source software. I do not know how many windows XP workstations I run across on a daily basis not because the software running on them will only run on XP or the systems will not support windows 7 (some will not though), but because getting some piece of software to run on windows 7 requires an upgrade that costs thousands and there is no legit reason to justify it until it is necessary (No features needed or wanted outside of working on windows 7 reliably).
Hell, I have two application suits that can be upgraded right now under the existing support contracts (one of which I can get no live support outside of knowledge base articles if I do not upgrade) but it will not happen because the companies will not authorize the budget to do the upgrades. They are in a maintenance mode waiting on the economy to turn up more or something.
It's not just about competent employees or open verses closed source software, it is about saving a buck, backwards compatibility and so on too.
Slashdot Mirror
I would hardly call Obama a Moron. It's true that he has done all that and it is true that he has managed to convince everyone that he is different. It's like the guy who gets caught sleeping with his secretary by his wife and not only convinces her not to divorce him, but to allow him to keep the secretary as if nothing ever happened.
I can think of a lot of things to call Obama, a moron is not one of them.
Wow... You people really amaze me.
First, Bush got us into those wars for reasons other then his daddy. The fact you even make that claim as if it was true shows how low your IQ must really be after being exposed to the I hate Bush bias for too long.
Second, Obama is not doing anything not already set in motion by Bush to get us out of those wars. In Iraq, Obama's big contribution was to rename the force classifications that would be left behind after combat troop withdraw under the Bush SOFA agreement.
Finally, there is not action done by Oboma that suggests he is in any way approaching anything differently other then word gimmicks. There has been no situation where Obama used negotiation where Bush had not. If there is, name it so I can learn of this major crisis. Obama has said firmly that Iran will not be allowed to become a nuclear power. If you take the rose colored glasses off, you will see the new boss is the same as the old, you just like to cheer for him more.
The advantage of Aircraft carriers is more to the mobility of them then any naval battle usage. It's the same reason why we put ICBMs on subs. The aircraft carrier can move to range of where a strategic air base is needed and we can assert air superiority in a combat field without ever needing to violate some other country's sovereignty or secure land within the combat zones.
They do have some drawbacks like the massive amounts of support and protection they require. But this is nothing compared to setting up and maintaining remote and forward air bases complete with mechanics, spare parts and so on every where we go. Actually, it is likely more efficient then that as when we abandon those bases, we will leave behind a lot of spent material and armaments built to defend the bases.
Think of Aircraft carriers not in the strict sense of naval operations like a battleship would be but in the sense of moving resources by naval operations. That is why they are so powerful, in the matter of days you can have a forward air base constructed and operational without ever stepping foot on foreign soil as long as you can have a flight path to the targets.
As apposed to some random jack with a pseudonym reminiscent of a pervert who's spouting opinions so perverted that history doesn't support them?
Grow up.
See my other reply. You are off on a side rant that pertains nothing to what I said.
No one said any votes were stolen, No one said that all people must vote for someone specific. If your vote is not actively working against any candidate, it is allow that candidate to win. Whether or not you want them to win is something you need to decide before throwing your vote away.
I do not have to take the other Nader voters into account. I did not say if Nader never ran, I said that the idea of voting third party if your guy doesn't look like or does look like he is going to win is a vote for the incumbent or in this case, the guy you did not want to win. There will be people who would have never voted for Bush or Gore, I am only concerned with the people who thought their vote didn't count so they voted for nader. You are trying to work something into this that was never said.
You have put numbers into the discussion that do not belong. I never said if no one voted for Nader. I said if you voted for him and wanted Bush to lose, his win was because you didn't vote against Bush. Voting for a third party who has no chance at winning is allowing the guy you want to lose to win.
Your insistance on this being about Nader not running is a fallacy existing only in your mind too. I never said anything of the sort, I confined my target to the people who thought Gore would win and their vote for Nader wouldn't matter. If just 1% of Nader's voters where if that nature and voted for Gore instead, Gore would have won the election in 2000. If everyone who voted for Nader did not care if Bush or Gore won, then it doesn't matter. But the news coming out of Florida seemed to imply a significant amount of people who voted for Nader did so thinking Gore was going to win and did not want Bush to win.
You go ahead and vote for whoever you wish. You have to reconcile with yourself the fact that not voting against someone is allowing that someone to win. If you are perfectly fine with 4 more years of Obama, then vote for anyone other then Romeny, if you are troubled about 4 years of Romney, then vote Obama. Anything else is letting the guy you do not want to actually win. Especially when you waste your vote on a third party candidate who even if they could win, doesn't have any support in congress and would be more of a joke for a president than Carter was when the democrats refused to support him in congress. A third party president would not get anything accomplished and the best way to unite the dems and repubs would be to put one into office.
All they have to do to make profit is make it cheaper then current forms of electricity. This will not be back yard inventor stuff where every home is powered by one built out of spare parts. It will be something sitting on a large site with power transmissions lines coming to it that is selling the electricity on a market. If it costs more to make then current forms, it will not be used. If it costs less, it will be implemented.
There is not reason to think something like this wouldn't be implemented by the competition. It's not like you are going to have a fusion reactor in your back yard. It would be a high energy device that transmits the electricity from point A to B through existing technology. The only difference might be the fuel a certain power generation plant uses.
Look, there was about 97k votes for Nader, Bush won Florida by 537 votes. If just 1% of Naders voters were voting for him because they thought Gore was going to take the state, that's 970 votes Gore could have gotten that he didn't. That would have upped Gores total to 433 more then Bush.
You don't have to pull numbers out of the air or pretend Nader didn't exist thinking no one would have voted for Nader. We are not concerned with all of Nader's voters. We are concerned only with the ones that decided not to vote against the guy they did not want and vote third party instead. Do you think that if people knew Bush was going to win by such a small margin, they would have not voted against him when 1% or less of Nader's votes could have kept him out? I'm pretty sure they would because quite a few people were pissed and saying that when they found out Bush won by such a small margin.
And to ignore history without learning from it means we are doomed to repeat it. If you want the incumbent to stay, vote for him or vote third party, if you want them to lose, then vote for whoever is most likely to beat them. Any nonsense with vote third party because of no chance to beat the incumbent is a bullshit attempt to keep the incumbent and pad results for the third party. If someone is already going to vote third party, then fine, but lets not pretend it's noble to vote third party when you actively want someone out of office.
You do not think that enough people voting third party could change that always votes one way?
The only time that is remotely valid is if the area normally votes against the incumbent and you want the incumbent to win but go third party instead. And it is only valid because you wanted the incumbent to win- not because your vote didn't matter. If enough people follow the your lead, the heavily one way can easily become the other way for that election.
Any vote that isn't for a candidate capable of beating the incumbent allows the incumbent to stay in office. It is effectively voting for them. It's factually correct if you use simple tools like math. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader proved this a couple of times in recent history.
Here, lets play with this complicated math stuff. Suppose you have 10 voters. All anyone would need is 6 votes to have more then the incumbent to oust him. If those 6 votes are divided between someone likely to win and someone with no chance in hell of winning, the incumbent wins by default. Lets Say the incumbent only got 4 of those ten votes. The remaining 6 votes is split between two parties, that's 3 + 3 votes which would equal 6 votes, enough to oust the incumbent, but not for the same guy meaning the incumbent wins. Clinton became president without even half the country voting for him. Bush win the election in 2000 largely because what would have made the difference voted for Ralph Nader. Florida wouldn't have even been in question if the Nader raiders voted for Gore.
But do not take my word for it, look at the official results. In these results we see that Bush officially received 2,912,790 votes or 48.847% of the votes cast. Gore received 2,912,253 votes or 48.838% of the votes cast. There is a difference of 537 votes or .009%. Ralph Nader who's voters would have typically voted democrat had he not run, received 97,488 votes or 1.635% of the vote. Less then one quarter of Nader Votes could have gave us 4 years of Gore instead of Bush. Of course nether was the incumbent but it goes to show that voting for who you want to be president even though they have no chance in hell of winning allows who you do not want to be president to take or keep office.
In damage control, the least evil of the bunch, you have to vote against the biggest evil else you allow them to win. It is really that simple.
It's all tied to expense. The companies I work with/for are small shops with less then 50 employees who do not develop in house except for maybe their web page if you could count that. They instead rely on industry specific proprietary software. Some of this software will just work for everything they need so they do not budget the expense of someone upgrading it or the costs of purchasing the upgrades.
Usually after about 2-3 years, they drop the support contracts for it because nothing has gone wrong and they see it as an unneeded expense. Most of the software doesn't include upgrades in their support contracts either. They treat the computers and software a lot like a wrench or a hammer or a Television set, as long as the ones they have work, there is no big reason to buy another. They think buying upgrades is a lot like getting a New TV simply because the screen is 2 inches bigger.
Where they looking for all his email or all his email mentioning his research? I was under the impression it was only all concerning the research paid for by the government and not the the email tech support for his toaster oven.
No, what made both parties come together and work things out was having a republican congress and a democrat president. Both knew that in order for anything to be done, they had to temper their ideals.
And a vote for libertarian is a vote for the incumbent no matter how you look at it. If you don't mind 4 more years of Obama, then go right ahead. If you are like me and trying to pick the least of two evils who will do the least amount of damage, then determine who is the greatest evil and vote for the most likely person to beat them.
No. I think you might have tripped over all the but- but - but- replies I had to bother with.
Socialism brought us the 8 hour work day as apposed to the unions. Unions as in labor unionts came after as a direct result of the socialist movements. That's all I was saying.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. There is no reason to think all nuts are socialist now or it wasn't good for him to find it. I'm technically against both socialism (as it exists today) and unions (as they surpassed most of their usefulness and typically drag companies down creating a strain on the economy). But I will not say neither ever had good ideas. It is just that socialist and communists came up with the 8 hour day- not unions as was originally stated.
Most likely. If women can practice tribadism, I'm not sure why men can't try. equal rights and all- if you're into the sort of thing that is.
Or, it is a lot like masturbation without all the work being done by yourself?
All joking aside, I dated a girl who was almost exactly like I thought I was. I found several things out. First, I wasn't like I thought I was. There was a lot about me I didn't know. Second, and probably most importantly, I couldn't stand her after a short period of time being around each other. She had the same problems, we would eventually drive each other nutz to the point we started fighting/arguing. We made an arrangement so we would never go to bed mad at each other. I would go for a walk and she would go into the kitchen and make something. Perhaps if I like nature better, we might still be together.
Not really. In 1850, Australia was still part of England and that is where the 8 hour work day largely originated. Robert Owen is famous espousing his 8 hour working day and even set it in motion as a mill he operated in England. He is also famous for leaving England to attempt to start a socialist colony (New Harmony) in the US as early as 1825. It failed and was dissolved by 1829. To say or claim that the free masons of Australia did not know of him or his socialist goals is a stretch by all imaginable means.
I'm not sure that a freedom of expression is violated if someone or a company does not give you a venue or platform to express it. Or would you consider the 6 O'clock news to be violating your freedom of expression every time they do not do a story on one of your rantings?
I would put following a stupid law in a country you have offices in as less evil then not giving you a stage to vent your (illegal in those countries) expressions in that country. Now there are areas where google doesn't have offices at and should be criticized to some extent. But I do not think it rises to the level of evil. Evil would be killing someone who had no part in the expression over the contents of the expression.
Listen, the socialist political movements started in about 1832 or so in France. By 1840-1845- perhaps a bit later, socialism was the fashionable thing in Europe and spreading. It was these people who brought us the 8 hour work day. Marx was part of this movement and political affiliation before he wrote the communist manifesto. That work BTW, was a direct result of his frustrations over not being able to get his socialist agendas implemented politically. Marx carried the 8 hour work day with him in his turn to communism.
Until the turn of the century, labor unions did not exist as we know them today. What you had was political parties who claimed to be a union of workers who attempted to influence and seek reform through changes in and the creation of laws. They did have a lot of support of workers but they were not organized like a trade union or a shop union we know today.
This isn't a red scare, it's historical fact. It was these socialist and communists who brought us the 8 hour work day. The reference to Marx is simply a time frame and the connection to communism which didn't become a reality until after the socialists failed in implementing a lot of their reforms. Whether you think it is important or not is completely ancillary to this point.
I believe your own distorted presentation of history is misleading. The eight-hour workday was not an emergent property of depression era unemployment. The depression was simply fuel to an already existing fire. How legislation emerges is often as important as the emergence itself...
The depression had little do do with it other then FDR thinking he could use goals of the socialist and communist parties to spread the work around. There is no 8 hour work day in law at this time in the US as the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. What replaced it was overtime.
Your pointing to trade unions wanting a 10 hour work day is not an 8 hour work day and trade unions are different then labor unions of today. The adamson act was actually the US government's attempt to break a strike and force railroad engineers back to work. Again, it was government not the unions. It only covered a small portion of rail lines to boot. Your tripe about Henry ford while beneficial to the 8 hour work day, only supports my assertion that it wasn't because of unions.
As for the National labor union, it was a sibling of the first international which was born directly out of the socialist movement in Europe and was more of a political organization then what we would consider a labor union. It actually failed and disappeared when it insisted on participating in the electoral process in an attempt to influence government directly.
The rest of your argument actually supports the socialist and communist political movements I mentioned. They were created around 1832 and gained notoriety closer to 1840 or so. It was a world wide movement and included Marx who ended up with his communist manifesto mainly because he grew frustrated with the ineffectiveness of socialism through political means.
The Unions did not give us the 8 hour work day, socialism and communism did. The US Government tried to give us an 8 hour work day, but that failed.
lol.. They were created by them not just associated with them.
That is an undeniable fact. So what is exactly right. I didn't say it was a good or bad thing, just that the 8 hour day was brought to us by the socialist and communist political movements and FDR attempted to institute it in 1933 but it was ruled unconstitutional so overtime became a work around.
Does the appearance of truth bother you that much?
Mainstream media is a moniker that denotes from specialized and alternative media. Mainstream media is the media that is traditionally available. It is a legitimate term that is often misused but not in this case.
You forgot WD-40 and Duct tape.
Actually, they do it all the time by keeping outdated and unsupported pieces of software around instead of updating to the latest and greatest for the sake of doing it. This can be open or closed source software. I do not know how many windows XP workstations I run across on a daily basis not because the software running on them will only run on XP or the systems will not support windows 7 (some will not though), but because getting some piece of software to run on windows 7 requires an upgrade that costs thousands and there is no legit reason to justify it until it is necessary (No features needed or wanted outside of working on windows 7 reliably).
Hell, I have two application suits that can be upgraded right now under the existing support contracts (one of which I can get no live support outside of knowledge base articles if I do not upgrade) but it will not happen because the companies will not authorize the budget to do the upgrades. They are in a maintenance mode waiting on the economy to turn up more or something.
It's not just about competent employees or open verses closed source software, it is about saving a buck, backwards compatibility and so on too.