Please, Nixon was most certainly not an "uberRepublican" by today's standards (shoot, by today's some of his policies would be of the Left) and even by the standards of the day he was only a bit right of middle. The Southern Realignment was still under way when he was in office so defining him under modern party terms doesnt make sense.
You imply that the above post's author is advocating more government when they are not. Moveover you make simplistic arguements like the only way to combat poverty is by spending more money. Please reread and notice that roughly half the things they bring up are due to government.
Well for starters, nothing in these articles is suggesting "impossed equality". I dont see any mention of the government seizing large flats in New Yrok and particianing them up and giving them to poor people or some other nonsnse.
Furthermore, equality versus inequality can most certainly be put in good / bad catagories. Are the conditions in some third world nations where there are a small number of wealthy while the vast majority of the rest of the population lives in poverty "good"? No and the vast majority of people would in fact likely say that these conditions are in fact "bad". Outside of the morality issues which you seem to have a problem with these conditions are also bad from am economic stand point. Massives wealthy inequality generates far less wealth then more equal socieities as poor people dont have disposable income for additional goods and services beyond the absolute basics.
Finally, when income inequality gets bad enough most of the rest of society's forms of equitableness go right out the window. If a private wealthy individual kicks you off your property in just about any afluent country your odds of getting a fair trail are good. In a country with wide spread poverty a simple bribe to a judge or to the government worker tasked with implementing the court's decision and your rights are gone. Judges and bureaucrats don't make very much and are thus more easily bribed and government overwatch is minimal as the government can't afford much because its tax base is so small.
Furthermore, please point out how the "money elites" are trying to change the law in this instance. You keep saying they are and I keep trying to figure out what you're referring to. The only thing I see here is a state government overriding the democratic process of its local governments.
Yeah, it's been bad lately. From a historic perspective, not the worst, but way too many people are involved in politics like sports fans are in their local teams. There's no rationality beyond their the local favorite behind their choice to support a side.
And to address your main point, please note, just about all of these tech companies were happy to locate themselves in South Carolina before Charlotte passed the bathroom law. It was the state's regressive policies of nullifying a local law and then taking it a step further and not allowing any local governments to pass legislation in regards to LGBT people that created this. Don't pretend these companies are being anti democratic by being upset about a law meant to take away the ability of local governments to protect minorities they would like to protect.
okay, you basically repeated what you said before. Maybe answer my question "What do either of these things have to do with "money elites".
Here we have a case of a state government over riding the will of a city government. Then Paypal decides they don't like the environment this suggests and chooses to not open up new facilities there. Is that where "money elites" are interfering in the democratic process? How would that make sense? I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
You're literally saying the actions of a few make it okay to demonize the whole. By that logic I should then brand all fiscal conservatives as rascists because a few tea partiers flew rascist Obama at rallies.
And why is it so objectionable to you that people don't like a person that pisses them off? Seems like human nature to me.
Oh and way to point out a typo. The validity of your arguement has increased tenfold by pointing out i made a typo in an internet forum.
What are you even talking about? So me disagreeing with this person and justifying it is some how rude? Perhaps you're the unpleasant person to talk to, wading into a debate on political philosophy and just start name calling? That doesnt make you very pleasant to talk to.
Yeah, I'm sure I'd feel totally safe and secure and would get warm reactions walking around a tea party rally talking about the benefits socialised medicine. I would wager quite the opposite in fact.
For every person of the Left you've met who flips out over opposing political views you can name I can probably name one on the Right I've met. What you're doing is demonizing an entire major ideology because according to you this entire ideology demonizes others. Do you not see the hypocracy in that? Should i brand all fiscal conservatives as rascist because rascist banners about Obama are sometimes flown at Tea Party rallies?
Maybe instead except the fact that world has assholes in it of every fold and branding an entire group based on the actions of some assholes (almost always the loudest of the group) wont get you anywhere.
So when the city of Charlotte passed their law they were acting on the whims of "a few activists" where as when the state does something it does so with the mandate of the people? Why dont you support this with some data. Or maybe you just believe this because you think only a few crazy people could ever support something you disagree with?
What's your point? Charlotte chose to pass a law allowing people to use restrooms that they associate with their gender. The state then chose to pass a law that nullified the law and forbid local government from passing any laws that offer protections to LGBT people. What do either of these things have to do with "money elites".
Is it because Paypal decided to post its operations in a different state? Does that mean those supporting the local city government laws are only doing it because of money? How does what you're saying apply to this at all?
There are people of every ideology who treat their beliefs as a faith. Freemarketers, hawks, liberals, etc. How are these any different? What about these people makes liberal progressivism into a religion of "hate". You seem to be undermining your own point by branding a very broad range of people as evil.
The horrible evils of the left, conspiracy theories about scientists and their "power process", "political correctness" destroying everything, workers being displaced by technology (damn the inventor of the wheel!), and the absolute worst, parents trying to get their kids interested in things that might help them later in life.
I questioned the reliability of the site's articles due to slashdots participating in April Fools (sarcastically but the editor seemed to have gotten it). An editor let me know they were good. I said I appreciated the responce but mentioned that the stuff they're doing is annoying. I then point out that that could just me being no fun. I made my oppinion known and even ackowledged that it might only be mine while leaving the window open for others to voice their takes.
Literally all you've done here is whining and name calling. This has been the entire substance of every post you've done in response to mine. Feel free to keep doing it, I think it's funny when people do stuff like this and then start calling the other person childish. Don't expect me to care though.
You're one of those people who think Hawaiian shirt day at work is fun and wacky and bothering people for not wearing green on St Patricks day is part of the fun arent you?
"Nut" was poor wording on my part. I stick to the main point of what i said though that I'm not a fan of guns in most normal public environments. There's no need and all it does is contribute to a paranoid society.
Sure Bob seems like a nice reasonable person but what of he cant take a joke and after a few drinks decides to flash his piece? Shoot, maybe I was being a bit of a dick. Doesnt matter, now i feel way less safe and for what? In a safe environment the most likely scenarios for a gun to come into play are almost all negative not to mention the afforementioned contribution to a paranoid environment. Leave the gun at home and bring it out of thr house when its actually needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, Nixon was most certainly not an "uberRepublican" by today's standards (shoot, by today's some of his policies would be of the Left) and even by the standards of the day he was only a bit right of middle. The Southern Realignment was still under way when he was in office so defining him under modern party terms doesnt make sense.
You imply that the above post's author is advocating more government when they are not. Moveover you make simplistic arguements like the only way to combat poverty is by spending more money. Please reread and notice that roughly half the things they bring up are due to government.
Well for starters, nothing in these articles is suggesting "impossed equality". I dont see any mention of the government seizing large flats in New Yrok and particianing them up and giving them to poor people or some other nonsnse.
Furthermore, equality versus inequality can most certainly be put in good / bad catagories. Are the conditions in some third world nations where there are a small number of wealthy while the vast majority of the rest of the population lives in poverty "good"? No and the vast majority of people would in fact likely say that these conditions are in fact "bad". Outside of the morality issues which you seem to have a problem with these conditions are also bad from am economic stand point. Massives wealthy inequality generates far less wealth then more equal socieities as poor people dont have disposable income for additional goods and services beyond the absolute basics.
Finally, when income inequality gets bad enough most of the rest of society's forms of equitableness go right out the window. If a private wealthy individual kicks you off your property in just about any afluent country your odds of getting a fair trail are good. In a country with wide spread poverty a simple bribe to a judge or to the government worker tasked with implementing the court's decision and your rights are gone. Judges and bureaucrats don't make very much and are thus more easily bribed and government overwatch is minimal as the government can't afford much because its tax base is so small.
Heaven forbid you use the article to find the link to the bill.
http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2015...
Furthermore, please point out how the "money elites" are trying to change the law in this instance. You keep saying they are and I keep trying to figure out what you're referring to. The only thing I see here is a state government overriding the democratic process of its local governments.
Yeah, it's been bad lately. From a historic perspective, not the worst, but way too many people are involved in politics like sports fans are in their local teams. There's no rationality beyond their the local favorite behind their choice to support a side.
(Not trying to bad mouth pro sports)
I'm not going to spend a ton of time with this but this along with associated links should satisfy your first request
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
And to address your main point, please note, just about all of these tech companies were happy to locate themselves in South Carolina before Charlotte passed the bathroom law. It was the state's regressive policies of nullifying a local law and then taking it a step further and not allowing any local governments to pass legislation in regards to LGBT people that created this. Don't pretend these companies are being anti democratic by being upset about a law meant to take away the ability of local governments to protect minorities they would like to protect.
okay, you basically repeated what you said before. Maybe answer my question "What do either of these things have to do with "money elites".
Here we have a case of a state government over riding the will of a city government. Then Paypal decides they don't like the environment this suggests and chooses to not open up new facilities there. Is that where "money elites" are interfering in the democratic process? How would that make sense? I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
You're literally saying the actions of a few make it okay to demonize the whole. By that logic I should then brand all fiscal conservatives as rascists because a few tea partiers flew rascist Obama at rallies.
And why is it so objectionable to you that people don't like a person that pisses them off? Seems like human nature to me.
Oh and way to point out a typo. The validity of your arguement has increased tenfold by pointing out i made a typo in an internet forum.
Oops, ha. You werent talking to me. You're still name calling though
What are you even talking about? So me disagreeing with this person and justifying it is some how rude? Perhaps you're the unpleasant person to talk to, wading into a debate on political philosophy and just start name calling? That doesnt make you very pleasant to talk to.
Yeah, I'm sure I'd feel totally safe and secure and would get warm reactions walking around a tea party rally talking about the benefits socialised medicine. I would wager quite the opposite in fact.
For every person of the Left you've met who flips out over opposing political views you can name I can probably name one on the Right I've met. What you're doing is demonizing an entire major ideology because according to you this entire ideology demonizes others. Do you not see the hypocracy in that? Should i brand all fiscal conservatives as rascist because rascist banners about Obama are sometimes flown at Tea Party rallies?
Maybe instead except the fact that world has assholes in it of every fold and branding an entire group based on the actions of some assholes (almost always the loudest of the group) wont get you anywhere.
So when the city of Charlotte passed their law they were acting on the whims of "a few activists" where as when the state does something it does so with the mandate of the people? Why dont you support this with some data. Or maybe you just believe this because you think only a few crazy people could ever support something you disagree with?
What's your point? Charlotte chose to pass a law allowing people to use restrooms that they associate with their gender. The state then chose to pass a law that nullified the law and forbid local government from passing any laws that offer protections to LGBT people. What do either of these things have to do with "money elites".
Is it because Paypal decided to post its operations in a different state? Does that mean those supporting the local city government laws are only doing it because of money? How does what you're saying apply to this at all?
There are people of every ideology who treat their beliefs as a faith. Freemarketers, hawks, liberals, etc. How are these any different? What about these people makes liberal progressivism into a religion of "hate". You seem to be undermining your own point by branding a very broad range of people as evil.
The horrible evils of the left, conspiracy theories about scientists and their "power process", "political correctness" destroying everything, workers being displaced by technology (damn the inventor of the wheel!), and the absolute worst, parents trying to get their kids interested in things that might help them later in life.
This guy did not have a strong grasp on reality.
There's more of it, keep it up! Now call me Childish!
Consistency isn't commonly known as a virtue but maybe if you try hard enough you can make it one!
I questioned the reliability of the site's articles due to slashdots participating in April Fools (sarcastically but the editor seemed to have gotten it). An editor let me know they were good. I said I appreciated the responce but mentioned that the stuff they're doing is annoying. I then point out that that could just me being no fun. I made my oppinion known and even ackowledged that it might only be mine while leaving the window open for others to voice their takes.
Literally all you've done here is whining and name calling. This has been the entire substance of every post you've done in response to mine. Feel free to keep doing it, I think it's funny when people do stuff like this and then start calling the other person childish. Don't expect me to care though.
Well you started the name calling so i thought I'd bring the conversation down to your level. I was thinking 13.
So you're the nice easy going guy whose a dick to anyone who doesnt like something he doesnt mind. Gotcha.
Right here, I did say "again loses all legitimacy"
You're one of those people who think Hawaiian shirt day at work is fun and wacky and bothering people for not wearing green on St Patricks day is part of the fun arent you?
I appreciate your reply. Still annoying but now at least the site is useable for me today.
Of course maybe I'm just no fun which is why I find it still annoying.
This just in: By participating in April Fools jokes Slashdot again looses all legitimacy as a news website for the day.
Slashdot plays annoying April Fools Joke that isn't funny. Why are the the mods fucked up? This is stupid.
"Nut" was poor wording on my part. I stick to the main point of what i said though that I'm not a fan of guns in most normal public environments. There's no need and all it does is contribute to a paranoid society.
Sure Bob seems like a nice reasonable person but what of he cant take a joke and after a few drinks decides to flash his piece? Shoot, maybe I was being a bit of a dick. Doesnt matter, now i feel way less safe and for what? In a safe environment the most likely scenarios for a gun to come into play are almost all negative not to mention the afforementioned contribution to a paranoid environment. Leave the gun at home and bring it out of thr house when its actually needed.