The difference is that the democrats have been nearly entirely taken over by the radical left... gimme a break, radical left is hardly the proper description of a candidate still supporting the war, married to the cashup princess. The radical left considers Kerry and Bush corporate HOs alike, and rightfully so. Center btw is a rather delusional term in a two party system, esspecially in the days of the republicrats. While theres an enormous exaggeration about the real differences between platforms, there is a really HUGE difference between candidates: at least kerry can be bothered by facts to an amount that ones intelect isn't constantly insulted. That difference of course is more of an aesthetical nature...
Well, its not a shuttle http://www.msicomputer.com/pressrelease/MEGAPC.asp but thats was the way I finally got a box into the living room, the thing has a high Woman Approval Rating and its nice for parties indeed.
As a bias is based on (informed or not) opinion and postings express them, whats the purpose? Only one I see is to allow for biased filtering and that betrays the purpose of the very meaning of discussion/communication.
a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
influence in an unfair way; "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours"
Thats why this bias here bias there sometimes gets me ticking, thats effing newspeak(TM). Implies that one should stfu in case he dares to have an opinion, this is my life - not some freaks' experiment. Ill leave objectivity to the historians of the future or some aliens examining the glowing rubble.
I highly recommend Hungary, if you happen to be in europe. Cheapest dentist of my life and I cant complain about the quality of his work nor could I say his equipment looked outdated or any such.
How about taking a look at other federal republic systems then? Anyone checked out the systems the germans are using? (No idea whats the technical term for it) Works like this (disclaimer: simplified version): Parties set up their lists of candidates by what ever method they choose, the resulting list is ordered as the party chooses (e.g. for the dems Kerry is Nr.1, Edwards Nr.2 and so forth). This is the nationwide list. For each district each party declares its candidate (who can also run on the nationwide list , but doesnt have to) for that specific district. Voters cast two votes, one for the list of their choice and one for the district candidate. The winner of the district holds a seat in parliament automatically (direct). Next step is to determine party preference according to the votes on nationwide lists (popular), then correlate that to the already granted seats by district votes and fill up the ranks according to the popular(they have a requirement of at least 5% of the popular for any party to qualify for that). Now parties in the assembly bargain for coalitions to gain a majority and get their guy elected. No vote wasted and nearly equal in power, if the districts are porperly laid out. Well, just to give a rough idea... after all, the germans needed to give it some thought after the nazi disaster.
;) I knew we'd be in agreement on the last line... But: Which will of course attack Europe if the United States isn't a target anymore (and the kind of fortress America I'm talking about we wouldn't be- nobody would get more than 10 meters across the border alive). I'll grant you the latter is possible but the former is unlikely, the attacks on europeans were actually attacks on US allies, a status automoatically revoked by the fortress thing. Considering further that major european countries have significiant muslim population and sooner or later the turkish are to join the european union and the arabic countries need someone to buy their oil to support there rapidly growing population I find it highly unlikely europe's gonna be on their target list anymore. Actually Id suspect fundamentalist 'movements' to disintegrate into groups fighting for local supremacy and become pretty much self-occupied. Of course this is speculation... and leaves one subject untouched: Israel. Closely linked can of worms, that is. But as Im speculating anyway, lets just carry on: of course Israel is the most likely target to draw the attention of al quaeda et allii. Stripped of american backing theyll be trapped in the same situation as the US is now, asymetrical warfare. Not that they wont be kinda used to it, but the scale and intensity will be increasing big time and I doubt they can hold their stand for long, with the one exception that I lack proper estimation of their nuclear potential.
We also believe in freedom. We believe that people are happiest when they are free. We fight for our freedom, antagonizing anyone who challenges.
Thats a hilarious description of the mindset of the nation with the highest incarcerations per capita worldwide. Hm, or did I miss the sarcasm tags?
We have a lot of things we have faith in. What do you believe in?
In reason... i was tempted to answer. But of course that would be a travesty, I dont need to believe, I practise. So Id have to answer that I believe in not to believe. Doesnt make life easier, but at least I dont have to make myself anymore dumber than I am.
Absolutely. Bush getting us into this war at all will lead us there- why not go all the way, get there a lot quicker, and finish off the rest of the world while we're at it?
hmmmmmm... i admit thers a strange logic to that point. Riding the tiger...
Exactly, and thus that's the more moral solution, isn't it? Don't fight to begin with- solidify our own borders, create fortress America, stop importing and exporting until such a time that the rest of the world fights it all out. We'd still end up with a ruined economy (part of the problem of having a one-legged stool for an energy policy) but at least we'd still be moral, right?
Under the assumption that the US was able to sustain it's needs from domestic resources alone (note: I'm not talking about economy, but the fulfillment of basic needs of it's population), that would be a legit and moral superior solution. But, and that's a BigBut(tm), I cant see no way the nation could uphold its current political system, killer arguement that its not going to happen - just too many depending on the daily money fix from the stock markets, the market depending on constant money insertions from abroad. On that part about the world fighting it out; to your surprise it could turn out that its not going to happen, esspecially if the stream of american weapons stops flooding the arsenals of warlords and american corporations unable to pay their local mercenaries. Nowadays it's a really distant posibility that developed countries will engage in a full scale war against each other, so the only remaining danger indeed is that of failed states creating the climate for terrorism. Atm the prefered target is the US and thats hardly going to change just by a change of politics in the US quickly, so considering the fortress you propose can stand the siege... it's still the US and terrorists fighting it out, but the nature of the fight is maybe changed. Whats also changed (and without any maybes) is the nature of the US as a nation to build that fortress, but many may consider it a minor change: from the land of the free to the land of the safe, hey but dont worry its still: this land is you're land.... duh. That's what you get when you surrender you're country to the corporate dickheads, a mess with little chance of a positive solution.
I'm not complaining about anything- my favored strategy in the war on terror would have Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Jordan, and parts of Egypt glowing in the dark WITHIN 72 HOURS OF THE TOWERS FALLING. Anything short of that is a stupid waste of time and American lives- and might as well not have been done at all for all the terrorism it's going to stop.
Until now international polls show an overwhelming tendency against Bush, but in favor of the american ppl. Such comments definitely do a lot to change that... But I suppose, since the US are the only nation to have ever actualy used nuclear weapons(not to open that can of worms, but the rest of the world definitely remebers the rather dubious circumstances), that constitutes kinda monopoly. So, to summarize you propose to kill millions of innocent ppl of arabic origin. There are words for ppl like you : racist and nazi. How strange, that correlates to the view an increasing part of the world holds towards american policy.
Oh and let me assure you, the rest of the world would happily welcome a new american isolationism, esspecially if that means no more pre-emptive strikes and no more military securing of oil contracts...
One could argue (and thereby taking up that notion of transferring the concept between different planes) that those ppl 'abusing' the system just adopted to it, as it is their 'natural' environment and they just follow natures inherent principle of energy saving. From that viewpoint the system is just poorly designed. But maybe that is shortsighted too; I dont know anything about the history of the US welfare system, but where (I come from its founders designed it with a political goal in mind that has nothing to do with charity or altruism : social stability. Considering that the ability to work is not enough to provide you with a job to make a living, the absence of a welfare system inevitably leads to higher crime rates, organized crime and eventually (most dangerously) to an ever sinking level of legitimacy in every regard, not only with the poor but also with the better off as the ability of society to protect them and their property is diminishing. In that sense welfare seems to a rather good invgestment in democracy.
If youre refering to this: "facts of history are like the letters of the alphabet - you may make them spell what you like." than it is Froude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Anthony_Froude Considering the partisan nature of his works, it seems a suitable quote.
Now back to ahistoric (dunno if this is just funny to me, cuz Im not a natve speaker, but LOL) Well, I grant you that its hardly the fault of the author in question... its definitely common to all refering to whatever form of social contract. To make a long story short it all boils down to failure to comprehend the nature likewise of men and society as evolving and mutually influencing each other.
My historian actually was a philosophers and he was trying to say that life has become the ideology of its absence. err pretty obvious.
I like the idea... but as far as I can judge the possible results (under the assumption that 'held liable' translates to rebuilding the state of things before, not only some fines or jail time) itll lead to a system of throw-away businesses (reap the profits and dismiss the whole thing quickly so theres nothing left to be sued). Not to speak of arising problems in an international setting, like the discussions regarding the international court of justice in The Hague.
"This means society cannot provide property. Only individuals can produce it," assuming the individualized worker of nowadays has been the blueprint of men through all the ages. Little farfetched, isnt it?
I thought evolution had taken care of social darwinists... Nevertheless, just for curiosity, Id be willing to listen to your interpretation of 'survival of the fittest' and the justification to translate that to the planes of society, if you care to elaborate.
"It was the enlightenment's view of God's benevolence ensuring that all things work for the best"... for the sake of being exact, it was Leibniz' (represented as Candide`s teacher Pangloss) concept of 'the best of all possible worlds' that is ridiculed in 'Candide' by empirism really. But Leibniz didnt require a benevolent and invtervening God, in his monadic System God is simply the highest monad, attributed with all-including consciousnes and completeness, if you like a logical necessity. All other monad decline in consciousness (and thereby in the abiliy to reflect the universe), the physical world being the sum of unconscious monads. Note how this differs from pantheist concepts or traditional theodicy declaring god to be 'prima causa'. The 'best of all possible worlds' in which aspect btw? Theres little reference to justice or even the well-faring of individuals with Leibniz so the answer is completeness, which translates to max. content.;) Just like sites
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that the democrats have been nearly entirely taken over by the radical left... gimme a break, radical left is hardly the proper description of a candidate still supporting the war, married to the cashup princess. The radical left considers Kerry and Bush corporate HOs alike, and rightfully so.
Center btw is a rather delusional term in a two party system, esspecially in the days of the republicrats.
While theres an enormous exaggeration about the real differences between platforms, there is a really HUGE difference between candidates: at least kerry can be bothered by facts to an amount that ones intelect isn't constantly insulted. That difference of course is more of an aesthetical nature...
Well, its not a shuttle http://www.msicomputer.com/pressrelease/MEGAPC.asp
but thats was the way I finally got a box into the living room, the thing has a high Woman Approval Rating and its nice for parties indeed.
Well, its not a shuttle http://www.msicomputer.com/pressrelease/MEGAPC.asp butthatswasthewayIfinallygotaboxintothelivingroom, thethinghasahighWoman Approval Rating and its nice for parties indeed.
You mean like register? NO.
As a bias is based on (informed or not) opinion and postings express them, whats the purpose? Only one I see is to allow for biased filtering and that betrays the purpose of the very meaning of discussion/communication.Whats a bias? http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=define%3Abias
two of the top three:
a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
influence in an unfair way; "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours"
Thats why this bias here bias there sometimes gets me ticking, thats effing newspeak(TM). Implies that one should stfu in case he dares to have an opinion, this is my life - not some freaks' experiment. Ill leave objectivity to the historians of the future or some aliens examining the glowing rubble.
Bush has ... but Kerry ... but Bush ... CRAP ... is becoming more and more of an intelectual downward spiral, ooops, economy anyone
I highly recommend Hungary, if you happen to be in europe. Cheapest dentist of my life and I cant complain about the quality of his work nor could I say his equipment looked outdated or any such.
How about taking a look at other federal republic systems then? Anyone checked out the systems the germans are using? (No idea whats the technical term for it) ... after all, the germans needed to give it some thought after the nazi disaster.
Works like this (disclaimer: simplified version):
Parties set up their lists of candidates by what ever method they choose, the resulting list is ordered as the party chooses (e.g. for the dems Kerry is Nr.1, Edwards Nr.2 and so forth). This is the nationwide list.
For each district each party declares its candidate (who can also run on the nationwide list , but doesnt have to) for that specific district.
Voters cast two votes, one for the list of their choice and one for the district candidate. The winner of the district holds a seat in parliament automatically (direct). Next step is to determine party preference according to the votes on nationwide lists (popular), then correlate that to the already granted seats by district votes and fill up the ranks according to the popular(they have a requirement of at least 5% of the popular for any party to qualify for that). Now parties in the assembly bargain for coalitions to gain a majority and get their guy elected. No vote wasted and nearly equal in power, if the districts are porperly laid out. Well, just to give a rough idea
;) I knew we'd be in agreement on the last line...
But:
Which will of course attack Europe if the United States isn't a target anymore (and the kind of fortress America I'm talking about we wouldn't be- nobody would get more than 10 meters across the border alive).
I'll grant you the latter is possible but the former is unlikely, the attacks on europeans were actually attacks on US allies, a status automoatically revoked by the fortress thing. Considering further that major european countries have significiant muslim population and sooner or later the turkish are to join the european union and the arabic countries need someone to buy their oil to support there rapidly growing population I find it highly unlikely europe's gonna be on their target list anymore. Actually Id suspect fundamentalist 'movements' to disintegrate into groups fighting for local supremacy and become pretty much self-occupied.
Of course this is speculation... and leaves one subject untouched: Israel. Closely linked can of worms, that is. But as Im speculating anyway, lets just carry on: of course Israel is the most likely target to draw the attention of al quaeda et allii. Stripped of american backing theyll be trapped in the same situation as the US is now, asymetrical warfare. Not that they wont be kinda used to it, but the scale and intensity will be increasing big time and I doubt they can hold their stand for long, with the one exception that I lack proper estimation of their nuclear potential.
We also believe in freedom. We believe that people are happiest when they are free. We fight for our freedom, antagonizing anyone who challenges.
Thats a hilarious description of the mindset of the nation with the highest incarcerations per capita worldwide. Hm, or did I miss the sarcasm tags?
We have a lot of things we have faith in. What do you believe in?
In reason... i was tempted to answer. But of course that would be a travesty, I dont need to believe, I practise. So Id have to answer that I believe in not to believe. Doesnt make life easier, but at least I dont have to make myself anymore dumber than I am.
... what usefull tools in the cold war theyve been.
Absolutely. Bush getting us into this war at all will lead us there- why not go all the way, get there a lot quicker, and finish off the rest of the world while we're at it?
... it's still the US and terrorists fighting it out, but the nature of the fight is maybe changed. Whats also changed (and without any maybes) is the nature of the US as a nation to build that fortress, but many may consider it a minor change: from the land of the free to the land of the safe, hey but dont worry its still: this land is you're land .... duh.
hmmmmmm... i admit thers a strange logic to that point. Riding the tiger...
Exactly, and thus that's the more moral solution, isn't it? Don't fight to begin with- solidify our own borders, create fortress America, stop importing and exporting until such a time that the rest of the world fights it all out. We'd still end up with a ruined economy (part of the problem of having a one-legged stool for an energy policy) but at least we'd still be moral, right?
Under the assumption that the US was able to sustain it's needs from domestic resources alone (note: I'm not talking about economy, but the fulfillment of basic needs of it's population), that would be a legit and moral superior solution. But, and that's a BigBut(tm), I cant see no way the nation could uphold its current political system, killer arguement that its not going to happen - just too many depending on the daily money fix from the stock markets, the market depending on constant money insertions from abroad.
On that part about the world fighting it out; to your surprise it could turn out that its not going to happen, esspecially if the stream of american weapons stops flooding the arsenals of warlords and american corporations unable to pay their local mercenaries. Nowadays it's a really distant posibility that developed countries will engage in a full scale war against each other, so the only remaining danger indeed is that of failed states creating the climate for terrorism. Atm the prefered target is the US and thats hardly going to change just by a change of politics in the US quickly, so considering the fortress you propose can stand the siege
That's what you get when you surrender you're country to the corporate dickheads, a mess with little chance of a positive solution.
I'm not complaining about anything- my favored strategy in the war on terror would have Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Jordan, and parts of Egypt glowing in the dark WITHIN 72 HOURS OF THE TOWERS FALLING. Anything short of that is a stupid waste of time and American lives- and might as well not have been done at all for all the terrorism it's going to stop.
...
Until now international polls show an overwhelming tendency against Bush, but in favor of the american ppl. Such comments definitely do a lot to change that... But I suppose, since the US are the only nation to have ever actualy used nuclear weapons(not to open that can of worms, but the rest of the world definitely remebers the rather dubious circumstances), that constitutes kinda monopoly. So, to summarize you propose to kill millions of innocent ppl of arabic origin. There are words for ppl like you : racist and nazi. How strange, that correlates to the view an increasing part of the world holds towards american policy.
Oh and let me assure you, the rest of the world would happily welcome a new american isolationism, esspecially if that means no more pre-emptive strikes and no more military securing of oil contracts
A troll is a troll is a troll ... and this a particular dumb one.
One could argue (and thereby taking up that notion of transferring the concept between different planes) that those ppl 'abusing' the system just adopted to it, as it is their 'natural' environment and they just follow natures inherent principle of energy saving. From that viewpoint the system is just poorly designed. But maybe that is shortsighted too; I dont know anything about the history of the US welfare system, but where (I come from its founders designed it with a political goal in mind that has nothing to do with charity or altruism : social stability. Considering that the ability to work is not enough to provide you with a job to make a living, the absence of a welfare system inevitably leads to higher crime rates, organized crime and eventually (most dangerously) to an ever sinking level of legitimacy in every regard, not only with the poor but also with the better off as the ability of society to protect them and their property is diminishing. In that sense welfare seems to a rather good invgestment in democracy.
If youre refering to this: "facts of history are like the letters of the alphabet - you may make them spell what you like." than it is Froude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Anthony_Froude
... its definitely common to all refering to whatever form of social contract. To make a long story short it all boils down to failure to comprehend the nature likewise of men and society as evolving and mutually influencing each other.
Considering the partisan nature of his works, it seems a suitable quote.
Now back to ahistoric (dunno if this is just funny to me, cuz Im not a natve speaker, but LOL)
Well, I grant you that its hardly the fault of the author in question
My historian actually was a philosophers and he was trying to say that life has become the ideology of its absence. err pretty obvious.
I like the idea... but as far as I can judge the possible results (under the assumption that 'held liable' translates to rebuilding the state of things before, not only some fines or jail time) itll lead to a system of throw-away businesses (reap the profits and dismiss the whole thing quickly so theres nothing left to be sued). Not to speak of arising problems in an international setting, like the discussions regarding the international court of justice in The Hague.
Ahistoric in a spectacularc way...
"This means society cannot provide property. Only individuals can produce it," assuming the individualized worker of nowadays has been the blueprint of men through all the ages. Little farfetched, isnt it?
I thought evolution had taken care of social darwinists ...
Nevertheless, just for curiosity, Id be willing to listen to your interpretation of 'survival of the fittest' and the justification to translate that to the planes of society, if you care to elaborate.
"It was the enlightenment's view of God's benevolence ensuring that all things work for the best" ... for the sake of being exact, it was Leibniz' (represented as Candide`s teacher Pangloss) concept of 'the best of all possible worlds' that is ridiculed in 'Candide' by empirism really. But Leibniz didnt require a benevolent and invtervening God, in his monadic System God is simply the highest monad, attributed with all-including consciousnes and completeness, if you like a logical necessity. All other monad decline in consciousness (and thereby in the abiliy to reflect the universe), the physical world being the sum of unconscious monads. Note how this differs from pantheist concepts or traditional theodicy declaring god to be 'prima causa'. ;) Just like sites
The 'best of all possible worlds' in which aspect btw? Theres little reference to justice or even the well-faring of individuals with Leibniz so the answer is completeness, which translates to max. content.