You're full of it. The Internet existed for over 20 years before companies started saving and making money with it. You try telling your shareholders you're going to spend billions of dollars of their money that might turn a profit in two decades.
Of course, because a couple far right wing rags say a radical with a microphone and his crowd of ten speak for an entire movement, that makes it so. And people wonder why I laugh at teabaggers...
Well, if it weren't for all of the massive government spending created by Mr. Roosevelt, it would have ended a lot sooner.
And let me guess: The civil war was fought to protect State's Rights from an invasive Federal government? Repeat a lie often enough, and you'll get people to believe it...
The last time the banks were allowed to fail was in the extremely lazzeis faire Hoover administration. The year was 1929. How well did that one work out?
If the Republican minority in the Senate were so *gasp* against it, they could have filibustered. Just like they did with just about every other meaningful piece of legislation.
Funny you should mention that notion on the 10 year anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. With all the tanks, fighters, smart bombs and drones, you'd think we wouldn't have a problem with guys firing Kalisnakovs from the bed of a pickup truck. Same story in Vietnam That's the error in your reasoning. Homegrown, asymmetrical resistance is damned hard to overthrow, irrespective of how strong your arsenal is. So long as the resistance has the will to continue fighting, conflict will continue. And you'd better believe that a small, lightly armed militia always has the economic advantage over a modern army. Some Taliban spends $200 for a bomb that kills three troops, and our response is to fire a $1.5 million dollar cruise missile to take out the same number of combatants. It's simple math, when you look at it...
Nobody should be receiving the benefit of my labor without some effort in return. I don't care if they're top or bottom 1%.
It sounds good to say something like "Welfare recipients should still have to work for their checks. Pick up trash, clean up a park, volunteer at a school!" But then you look at the numbers: How do you enforce this law? As a taxpayer, how much are you willing to spend to make sure each and every welfare case is "working"? Are you willing to pay for every single mothers' childcare so she can put in her work? Plus there is the cost in adjudicating the exceptions. You can expect a healthy 25 year old to be able to work. A 50-something in chronic pain management? Not so much. Then, what happens when you get a case who is not in compliance? Do you throw them and their children out on the street?
Insurance makes sense from a risk-assessment point of view. Chances are, you'll never get out of insurance what you put in to it. Butdo wind up needing it, insurance will make the difference between a minor inconvenience and likely financial ruin.
Taxation without representation? Yeah, I'm getting that.
Umm... So long as you don't live in DC you still have Senators and Representatives. So you are being represented. Whether or not you are happy with your representation is another story.
That's exactly why we need to hold corporations responsible! Corporations don't have to worry about the law when they can buy their own lawmakers to pass favorable legislation.
The only president in the past 40 years to reduce the debt was Bill Clinton, and that was much more a product of economic boom times as it was of any political agenda on either side of the aisle.
Which is the side of Keynesian Economics you seldom hear either side talk about. It's expected that government "spend" its way out of recession. But you make sure to pay off this debt during times of prosperity.
1. In the 70's it was global cooling. In the 80's it was the ozone.
The "Global Cooling" meme that came about in the 70's was drastically overstated by the press. Peer review showed the fault in Global Cooling theory very shortly after Time and Newsweek ran with the story. If you look at the climate research of the 60s and 70s, you'll see that papers predicting warming outnumbered cooling by nearly 7 to 1. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html. Ozone depletion was actually acted upon by outlawing certain CFCs and refrigerants. What a surprise! Ozone levels started stabilizing in the years that followed.
2. Assuming climate change is occurring, and assuming it's man-made, why is it really all that bad? Yes, change always has some short-term negative consequences, but long term, isn't a warmer earth better than a cooler earth? For instance, there's a lot of land at high latitudes that could become arable if it were just a little warmer. Don't just tell me all the negatives. Acknowledge that there are positives, but convince me that the negatives outweigh the positives.
We may see far northern and southern regions becoming arable. But at the cost of losing the current world "breadbaskets". That means famine and drought; at least until the world's farms have time to relocate. We've seen clearly how people are willing to go to war over Oil. How do you think they'll respond when the resource in question is food and water? Large scale famine is never a good thing. War, despotism, and genocide always follow in its wake. Sorry, I won't take that bet.
3. What is the cost of trying to counter global warming? Sure, if we had infinite resources, most people would agree that we should throw some of them at the problem. But if the "solution" means putting more regulations on businesses in the middle of a recession which add costs that otherwise could go to employment or expansion, spending money that we don't have and adding even more to a debt that already puts the nation on the verge of bankruptcy, isn't the cure worse than the disease?
Is there a cost? Absolutely. But if you prefer, look at it as an investment. There is a truth here: alternative energy will someday power the world. Europe, Asia, and parts of South America are already putting their research and manufacturing capabilities to this task. Who do you want leading this initiative (and pocketing the revenue)? Germany? India?... China? Personally, I'd like to see the the bleeding edge research done by American universities, design done by American engineers and entrepreneurs, manufacturing done by American factories with the social and economic benefits shared by American businesses, shareholders, and laborers.
This is where it gets funny. Republicans of the traditional stripe don't have any problem with evolution, but pretend it's in doubt for political expediency. But climate change denial is dear to their hearts, because they think it's going to cost rich people money to deal with it.
Here's where it gets sinister. When Republicans need to "rally the base" around climate change denial, they already have an army of active poor and middle-class voters who are used to mocking the findings of "a bunch of Ivory-tower, librul, Stanford professors". The "University Elite" who sound off about AGW are cut from the same cloth (And funded by the same eeeeeevil government) as the Professors who preach godless, satanic Evolution. Therefore, it MUST be wrong!
we maintain that markets, not mandates, are the path to prosperity
The "market" says it's more cost-effective to staff your factory with 8-year olds working 16 hour shifts. Is that what you want? The market is a tool. And yes, it can lead to prosperity. But it is entirely amoral.
Ghost Pirate 1: We need that key that starts your boat Mr. Big Stuff, let's have it? Brock Samson: It's up my ass. Ghost Pirate 2: Are you serious? Brock Samson: Why don't you check? Ghost Pirate 2: Well, check. Ghost Pirate 1: What if he's lying? Ghost Pirate 2: If he were telling the truth, that would be better?
Though I probably wasn't paying attention to how Lucas tried to explain the voting for Queens.
Pretty simple. A state gives up a Monarchy to become a Republic, but keeps the trappings of royalty (dress, titles, customs) for its elected head-of-state. This implies not only cultural pride, but likely a very peaceful transition between the two forms of government.
Meanwhile, Star Trek is a commentary on current events and attitudes set against the backdrop of space.
It's not a fairy tale or fable, it's allegory.
Star Wars had this as well. It shows what happens when corporate interests trump democracy. You have monopolies with private armies as well as representation in the Senate. These interests use their political and military power to suppress indigenous populations, causing both a social and a military crisis. Under this backdrop, the People willingly trade the inefficiencies of democracy for a dictator who promises to restore order - all to the sound of "thunderous applause". This theme wasn't put on film until the prequels, but Lucas had written much of this into the forward of the 1977 novelization of Star Wars.
The Jedi were the guardians of the republic for either a thousand years or a thousand generations (George not keeping his units straight), and the galactic society being older than that.
It was both.:) The Jedi joined the Old Republic about 24,000 years (a thousand generations) before the Battle of Yavin. The Republic crumbled about 1100 years BBY and entered a hundred year Dark Age, which ended with the presumed "extinction" of the Sith and the rebuilding of the Republic. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_galactic_history
Slashdot Mirror
That idea is absolutely horrifying. Please stay far away from public service.
You're full of it. The Internet existed for over 20 years before companies started saving and making money with it. You try telling your shareholders you're going to spend billions of dollars of their money that might turn a profit in two decades.
"Abu is great?"
Of course, because a couple far right wing rags say a radical with a microphone and his crowd of ten speak for an entire movement, that makes it so. And people wonder why I laugh at teabaggers...
Also common amongst Ohioans...
And let me guess: The civil war was fought to protect State's Rights from an invasive Federal government? Repeat a lie often enough, and you'll get people to believe it...
The last time the banks were allowed to fail was in the extremely lazzeis faire Hoover administration. The year was 1929. How well did that one work out?
If the Republican minority in the Senate were so *gasp* against it, they could have filibustered. Just like they did with just about every other meaningful piece of legislation.
Ding! We have a winner!
Funny you should mention that notion on the 10 year anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. With all the tanks, fighters, smart bombs and drones, you'd think we wouldn't have a problem with guys firing Kalisnakovs from the bed of a pickup truck. Same story in Vietnam That's the error in your reasoning. Homegrown, asymmetrical resistance is damned hard to overthrow, irrespective of how strong your arsenal is. So long as the resistance has the will to continue fighting, conflict will continue. And you'd better believe that a small, lightly armed militia always has the economic advantage over a modern army. Some Taliban spends $200 for a bomb that kills three troops, and our response is to fire a $1.5 million dollar cruise missile to take out the same number of combatants. It's simple math, when you look at it...
Ok. And that is different from now, how?
It sounds good to say something like "Welfare recipients should still have to work for their checks. Pick up trash, clean up a park, volunteer at a school!" But then you look at the numbers: How do you enforce this law? As a taxpayer, how much are you willing to spend to make sure each and every welfare case is "working"? Are you willing to pay for every single mothers' childcare so she can put in her work? Plus there is the cost in adjudicating the exceptions. You can expect a healthy 25 year old to be able to work. A 50-something in chronic pain management? Not so much. Then, what happens when you get a case who is not in compliance? Do you throw them and their children out on the street?
Aflac!
Insurance makes sense from a risk-assessment point of view. Chances are, you'll never get out of insurance what you put in to it. Butdo wind up needing it, insurance will make the difference between a minor inconvenience and likely financial ruin.
Umm... So long as you don't live in DC you still have Senators and Representatives. So you are being represented. Whether or not you are happy with your representation is another story.
That's exactly why we need to hold corporations responsible! Corporations don't have to worry about the law when they can buy their own lawmakers to pass favorable legislation.
Which is the side of Keynesian Economics you seldom hear either side talk about. It's expected that government "spend" its way out of recession. But you make sure to pay off this debt during times of prosperity.
The "Global Cooling" meme that came about in the 70's was drastically overstated by the press. Peer review showed the fault in Global Cooling theory very shortly after Time and Newsweek ran with the story. If you look at the climate research of the 60s and 70s, you'll see that papers predicting warming outnumbered cooling by nearly 7 to 1. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html. Ozone depletion was actually acted upon by outlawing certain CFCs and refrigerants. What a surprise! Ozone levels started stabilizing in the years that followed.
We may see far northern and southern regions becoming arable. But at the cost of losing the current world "breadbaskets". That means famine and drought; at least until the world's farms have time to relocate. We've seen clearly how people are willing to go to war over Oil. How do you think they'll respond when the resource in question is food and water? Large scale famine is never a good thing. War, despotism, and genocide always follow in its wake. Sorry, I won't take that bet.
Is there a cost? Absolutely. But if you prefer, look at it as an investment. There is a truth here: alternative energy will someday power the world. Europe, Asia, and parts of South America are already putting their research and manufacturing capabilities to this task. Who do you want leading this initiative (and pocketing the revenue)? Germany? India? ... China? Personally, I'd like to see the the bleeding edge research done by American universities, design done by American engineers and entrepreneurs, manufacturing done by American factories with the social and economic benefits shared by American businesses, shareholders, and laborers.
But that's just my opinion.
Here's where it gets sinister. When Republicans need to "rally the base" around climate change denial, they already have an army of active poor and middle-class voters who are used to mocking the findings of "a bunch of Ivory-tower, librul, Stanford professors". The "University Elite" who sound off about AGW are cut from the same cloth (And funded by the same eeeeeevil government) as the Professors who preach godless, satanic Evolution. Therefore, it MUST be wrong!
The "market" says it's more cost-effective to staff your factory with 8-year olds working 16 hour shifts. Is that what you want? The market is a tool. And yes, it can lead to prosperity. But it is entirely amoral.
Ghost Pirate 1: We need that key that starts your boat Mr. Big Stuff, let's have it?
Brock Samson: It's up my ass.
Ghost Pirate 2: Are you serious?
Brock Samson: Why don't you check?
Ghost Pirate 2: Well, check.
Ghost Pirate 1: What if he's lying?
Ghost Pirate 2: If he were telling the truth, that would be better?
Resistance is futile, okey-day?
Pretty simple. A state gives up a Monarchy to become a Republic, but keeps the trappings of royalty (dress, titles, customs) for its elected head-of-state. This implies not only cultural pride, but likely a very peaceful transition between the two forms of government.
Star Wars had this as well. It shows what happens when corporate interests trump democracy. You have monopolies with private armies as well as representation in the Senate. These interests use their political and military power to suppress indigenous populations, causing both a social and a military crisis. Under this backdrop, the People willingly trade the inefficiencies of democracy for a dictator who promises to restore order - all to the sound of "thunderous applause". This theme wasn't put on film until the prequels, but Lucas had written much of this into the forward of the 1977 novelization of Star Wars.
It was both. :) The Jedi joined the Old Republic about 24,000 years (a thousand generations) before the Battle of Yavin. The Republic crumbled about 1100 years BBY and entered a hundred year Dark Age, which ended with the presumed "extinction" of the Sith and the rebuilding of the Republic. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_galactic_history