. JFK and Reagan were the only ones smart enough to do the right thing, and it showed in the years after their presidency.
You're actually defending Reagan?!?!
Setting up torture schools in Central America to train terrorists. Involving the CIA in the international cocaine trade. Criminally treasonous weapons sales to terrorists.
Those are the true legacies of the Reagan administration and they have come home to roost. Where do you think all these terrorists came from you fucking moron.
Just assuming that the source of methane is life without any other evidence but the methane itself seems like going so far out on a limb that you might as well just cut the limb off.
But if you just cut the limb off, you don't get the opportunity to laugh at the person hanging on to the end of it when it breaks off. Sheesh, where's your sense of humor;-)
I have nothing against the midwest. I just don't want to live there.
I moved from San Diego to Chicago, so I'm technically in the midwest, but it's the one source of life and culture in the whole area. It is freaking cold though. If you've never been anywhere that has nasty winters, you seriously couldn't even comprehend ( I didn't until I saw it).
Chicago is very diverse on the one hand, yet the most racially divided city in the country at the same time which is kind of odd. The restaurants are off the hook though, and all the cool neighborhood bars are great. California really doesn't have any cities like it. San Francisco is as close as it gets and that's a very small city, relatively.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to convince you to move out here or anything. I'm just getting ready to leave work and felt like giving my mini half assed travel guide;-)
The downside is that Nebraska is the ugliest, most boring looking, flat state in the union with the possible exception of Kansas. There is nothing to do except go hunting and fishing (not that there's anything wrong with hunting and fishing). Not to mention hailstorms, tornados, and really, really, shitty winters.
We are not surprised to find out that people live there as we are forced constantly to send welfare checks to your state to subsidize your existence.
There's a reason that your house was so cheap, and that's because the vast majority of people couldn't be paid enough to live there.
Is this true though? It would seem that since it has two different types of propulsion system that it would weight more than a similarly sized gas only car. Of course, I don't know much at all about them which should be obvious by now.
Since you're the one who chooses to live where you do, why shouldn't that be you? Why should everybody else subsidize you?
If you live in a rural area, then already, your phone is subsidized, your gas is subsidized, basically most aspects of your life are subsidized. Why would such a person expect anything different?
Hitler was against Communism, and Communism is an ideology generally regarded as pretty far left.
That's certainly true, but just because somebody hates something doesn't mean that they are not that thing.
His regime is largely regarded as fascist, and fascism is generally regarded as pretty far right.
And
However, Hitler's Germany did indeed practice a form of government similar to Socialism, where the government controlled production.
These two statements seem to directly contradict each other.
Government controlling production is Leftist, Business controlling government is Rightist. In reality, the differences are pretty trivial once you hit certain extremes. It's really more like a circle than a line where the extreme right and left are basically the same point on the circle.
Hitler was not a leftist
I'm still unconvinced of this for the reasons I gave above.
Democratic Morality: Killing a murderer, evil. Killing an unborn child, good.
All depends on how you look at it.
I certainly agree that a lot of things depend upon how you look at them, and I figure that would be the Republican response, but the situation is not symmetrical in that sense.
The primary difference is that nobody is saying that abortion is good. Another difference is that I'm not referencing capital punishment whereas your response does (as far as I can tell).
That's one of the fundamental hypocracies of the so called Christian right (who are neither) that they support capital punishment as that is about as anti-Christian an attitude as it is possible to have.
The other main reasons that that response isn't the mirror of mine is that, in general, the people who are opposed to abortion are also those opposed to almost every way to prevent it besides passing incredibly invasive laws (Sex education, birth control etc.)
Now, given all that, I understand that you were merely pointing out what a response might be rather than stating it as fact, and I completely agree with that assessment.
To characterize Mr. Chomsky as slightly left of center would be be similar to saying Hitler was just a tad right of center.
Bad example. Hitler was an extreme Leftist. Mussolini would be the one that you're looking for, he was an extreme Rightist (pretty damn close to the same degree as the current American administration).
Apart from the whole holocaust thing ( which I'm not belittling, it just isn't relevant to the left/right distinction ) there really isn't much of a difference between the two which should be a warning to everybody about the dangers of extemists of whatever ilk.
(1) Gun control. Way more smart Americans believe in the right to carry a weapon than smart non-Americans. Most of the rest of the Western world thinks the US is kind of insane on this issue, actually.
You are missing a very important difference though. A huge number of people in America already own guns. There is a very critical difference between arguing that things would be better if this were not true versus given the current situation outlawing gun ownership. The result of outlawing guns in America right now would be to put the population at the mercy of criminals.
(2) Global warming. It is near-universally accepted outside the US that this is happening, and that humankind is responsible. But many smart Americans doubt this.
It is pretty much universally accepted that global warming is happening. It is also pretty much universally accepted that humans are having an affect on this. What isn't nearly so widely known is the magnitude of this affect. That many smart Americans doubt this is really dependant upon your definition of smart.
You only have to look at those poor, suffering Japanese and Germans to know that America wants to rule the world.
And you have to go back 60 years to find examples of where we actually did it right. The vast majority of the more modern examples are of us assassinating democratically elected leaders to install brutal dictators who murder 10s of thousands of their own citizens in the interest of American business.
Pull your sadly deluded head out of your ass and reallize that while we aren't solely evil, we are not anywhere near "good" either.
ask yourself why you argue for homosexual rights but not for polygamous rights
Well, in my case, the whole thing pisses me off because people are seriously arguing that we should amend the Constitution to specifically deny equality to a certain group based solely upon how they were born.
The semantics of what is a marriage are really pretty silly to me. I do think that by creating two different names for what is, in the eyes of the government, essentially an issue of property rights creates two different classes of citizens and a lot of extra useless red tape.
Personally, I don't agree with either lifestyle - but I think the choice is left to the individual.
Congratulations. You have what it takes to be a good citizen of a free society. That's getting scarce lately.
I don't want the government defining two men living together as a marriage (though if the two men want to describe it as such, I don't care) - but I also do not want the government to play favorites.
This relates to what I said above about two classes of citizens. This is inherently playing favorites.
I think we should drop the preferential treatment for marriage, and instead do something for families
I'm married, we don't have any kids and probably won't. The only "preferential treatement" I'm aware of right now is regarding health benefits, hospital visitation rights and a few other issues like that. You're clearly not proposing dropping that, so I'm not sure what other benefits I'm missing out on.
Cool. Thanks for the link. I knew about the brane theory and the idea that they bumb into each other some times, but I had no idea people were suggesting gravitons could move between "universes".
As to the "evilness" of polygamy - as long as the relationship is honest, I really can't see why that would be "more evil" than a homosexual marriage. Why do most people think that it is more evil?
I don't know that they do.
I see no moral difference whatsoever between a straight marriage, a gay marriage, or a polygamous marriage. If anybody else does then that is their prerogative. However if their reasoning boils down to their god said it was bad, then there is no justification for getting the government involved.
The major problem is that too many people do not understand that freedom takes a great deal of courage. It takes the courage to say that while I may dislike how you live your life being free means that I have the courage to stay out of it since it isn't any of my fucking business. That's why these people are trying so hard to restrict freedom-- Because they are cowards.
There really is no other reason to try and ban someone's lifestyle that has zero affect on you. If you think there is, I'd love to hear it since in the 5 or so years that this debate has been mainstream, not one single person on the anti side has ever proposed any other reasoning than their own cowardice.
It stopped being more than just a legal agreement a long time ago and now only exists as sacred in the minds of people who've never tasted it's reality
It only started being anything but a legal agreement recently, and then only in the minds of some. Marriage has always been about property rights. It is neither sacred nor religious although many religions have incorporated it. All these deluded wackos who try to claim it is are liars. The really sad part is that they try to claim the moral high ground based on idiotic lies. Sad.
Wow, I haven't heard that theory before (not that I get a memo about all the new happenings or anything). Do you have a (readable) link to some more detail on that?
MS SQL server is a good example, it has stayed on the top because it has alot of features other databases dont have, they got it up to the top fast (with features) and havent really touched it lately.
The problem with this is that MS SQL Server is not now, nor has it ever been, on top. Oracle is still mopping the floor with it. Also, MS has never made money off of it. It's still a loss only funded by monopoly profits on the only products they have that actually do turn a profit: Windows and Office.
If you recall during the Clinton administration, CNN was constantly referred to as the Clinton News Network because of their leniency. Clinton was also called Slick-Willy quite frequently because accusations against him just slid right off.
CNN was called that only by the most extremist right wingers. Nobody with any sense called it that.
Accusations did slide off him, but that's because, for the most part, they were completely bullshit accusations.
They never even would have been reported had the press done any sort of sanity check on the whole thing. Add in the fact that they were like vultures on the whole Monica thing when, had they even a scrap of objectivity, they would have rousted the slimebags who wasted millions of dollars trying to nail a president for a blowjob because * they couldn't find anything else*
However when it comes to their treatment of Bush, the one network with the integrity to air an unflattering story is still being attacked over one piece of evidence which was inaccurately refered to as the actual document even though *all the words on their document were on the actual document, it was just a different piece of paper.*
Now, please quit the moronic bullshit about a liberal press. It doesn't exist and hasn't for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
. JFK and Reagan were the only ones smart enough to do the right thing, and it showed in the years after their presidency.
You're actually defending Reagan?!?!
Setting up torture schools in Central America to train terrorists.
Involving the CIA in the international cocaine trade.
Criminally treasonous weapons sales to terrorists.
Those are the true legacies of the Reagan administration and they have come home to roost.
Where do you think all these terrorists came from you fucking moron.
Might be worth it for medical reasons... a completely separate instantiation of Life might have developed unique solutions to various issues.
;-)
Plus, they might get you really high
Just assuming that the source of methane is life without any other evidence but the methane itself seems like going so far out on a limb that you might as well just cut the limb off.
;-)
But if you just cut the limb off, you don't get the opportunity to laugh at the person hanging on to the end of it when it breaks off.
Sheesh, where's your sense of humor
I have nothing against the midwest. I just don't want to live there.
;-)
I moved from San Diego to Chicago, so I'm technically in the midwest, but it's the one source of life and culture in the whole area.
It is freaking cold though. If you've never been anywhere that has nasty winters, you seriously couldn't even comprehend ( I didn't until I saw it).
Chicago is very diverse on the one hand, yet the most racially divided city in the country at the same time which is kind of odd.
The restaurants are off the hook though, and all the cool neighborhood bars are great.
California really doesn't have any cities like it. San Francisco is as close as it gets and that's a very small city, relatively.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to convince you to move out here or anything. I'm just getting ready to leave work and felt like giving my mini half assed travel guide
I live in a small town in Nebraska.
The downside is that Nebraska is the ugliest, most boring looking, flat state in the union with the possible exception of Kansas.
There is nothing to do except go hunting and fishing (not that there's anything wrong with hunting and fishing). Not to mention hailstorms, tornados, and really, really, shitty winters.
We are not surprised to find out that people live there as we are forced constantly to send welfare checks to your state to subsidize your existence.
There's a reason that your house was so cheap, and that's because the vast majority of people couldn't be paid enough to live there.
a hybrid car generally weighs a lot less
Is this true though? It would seem that since it has two different types of propulsion system that it would weight more than a similarly sized gas only car.
Of course, I don't know much at all about them which should be obvious by now.
Since you're the one who chooses to live where you do, why shouldn't that be you? Why should everybody else subsidize you?
If you live in a rural area, then already, your phone is subsidized, your gas is subsidized, basically most aspects of your life are subsidized.
Why would such a person expect anything different?
Hitler was against Communism, and Communism is an ideology generally regarded as pretty far left.
That's certainly true, but just because somebody hates something doesn't mean that they are not that thing.
His regime is largely regarded as fascist, and fascism is generally regarded as pretty far right.
And
However, Hitler's Germany did indeed practice a form of government similar to Socialism, where the government controlled production.
These two statements seem to directly contradict each other.
Government controlling production is Leftist, Business controlling government is Rightist.
In reality, the differences are pretty trivial once you hit certain extremes. It's really more like a circle than a line where the extreme right and left are basically the same point on the circle.
Hitler was not a leftist
I'm still unconvinced of this for the reasons I gave above.
the Republican response would be:
Democratic Morality: Killing a murderer, evil. Killing an unborn child, good.
All depends on how you look at it.
I certainly agree that a lot of things depend upon how you look at them, and I figure that would be the Republican response, but the situation is not symmetrical in that sense.
The primary difference is that nobody is saying that abortion is good.
Another difference is that I'm not referencing capital punishment whereas your response does (as far as I can tell).
That's one of the fundamental hypocracies of the so called Christian right (who are neither) that they support capital punishment as that is about as anti-Christian an attitude as it is possible to have.
The other main reasons that that response isn't the mirror of mine is that, in general, the people who are opposed to abortion are also those opposed to almost every way to prevent it besides passing incredibly invasive laws (Sex education, birth control etc.)
Now, given all that, I understand that you were merely pointing out what a response might be rather than stating it as fact, and I completely agree with that assessment.
To characterize Mr. Chomsky as slightly left of center would be be similar to saying Hitler was just a tad right of center.
Bad example.
Hitler was an extreme Leftist.
Mussolini would be the one that you're looking for, he was an extreme Rightist (pretty damn close to the same degree as the current American administration).
Apart from the whole holocaust thing ( which I'm not belittling, it just isn't relevant to the left/right distinction ) there really isn't much of a difference between the two which should be a warning to everybody about the dangers of extemists of whatever ilk.
I voted for Bush, and that doesnt make me an idiot.
It either makes you an idiot, or completely amoral.
There really are no other options if you honestly think it through.
(1) Gun control. Way more smart Americans believe in the right to carry a weapon than smart non-Americans. Most of the rest of the Western world thinks the US is kind of insane on this issue, actually.
You are missing a very important difference though.
A huge number of people in America already own guns.
There is a very critical difference between arguing that things would be better if this were not true versus given the current situation outlawing gun ownership. The result of outlawing guns in America right now would be to put the population at the mercy of criminals.
(2) Global warming. It is near-universally accepted outside the US that this is happening, and that humankind is responsible. But many smart Americans doubt this.
It is pretty much universally accepted that global warming is happening. It is also pretty much universally accepted that humans are having an affect on this.
What isn't nearly so widely known is the magnitude of this affect. That many smart Americans doubt this is really dependant upon your definition of smart.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
/. so whew.
I just finished mine, with no mention of
You only have to look at those poor, suffering Japanese and Germans to know that America wants to rule the world.
And you have to go back 60 years to find examples of where we actually did it right.
The vast majority of the more modern examples are of us assassinating democratically elected leaders to install brutal dictators who murder 10s of thousands of their own citizens in the interest of American business.
Pull your sadly deluded head out of your ass and reallize that while we aren't solely evil, we are not anywhere near "good" either.
So what's the official Bush-basher position, is his foreign policy too unilateral or too multilateral?
For me, it is the total lack of integrity evidenced by him and his administration.
they could've been known for something other than America's neighbors.
Awwwwwww, come on, dude.
Don't forget living in igloos and being eaten by polar bears.
ask yourself why you argue for homosexual rights but not for polygamous rights
Well, in my case, the whole thing pisses me off because people are seriously arguing that we should amend the Constitution to specifically deny equality to a certain group based solely upon how they were born.
The semantics of what is a marriage are really pretty silly to me. I do think that by creating two different names for what is, in the eyes of the government, essentially an issue of property rights creates two different classes of citizens and a lot of extra useless red tape.
Personally, I don't agree with either lifestyle - but I think the choice is left to the individual.
Congratulations. You have what it takes to be a good citizen of a free society. That's getting scarce lately.
I don't want the government defining two men living together as a marriage (though if the two men want to describe it as such, I don't care) - but I also do not want the government to play favorites.
This relates to what I said above about two classes of citizens. This is inherently playing favorites.
I think we should drop the preferential treatment for marriage, and instead do something for families
I'm married, we don't have any kids and probably won't.
The only "preferential treatement" I'm aware of right now is regarding health benefits, hospital visitation rights and a few other issues like that.
You're clearly not proposing dropping that, so I'm not sure what other benefits I'm missing out on.
Drafting the letters of those laws is somewhat more complex than programming a robot to vacuum a room.
Yeah, but that's what makes the positronic brain(tm) so awesome, Dude. It figures all of that out for you.
Cool. Thanks for the link.
I knew about the brane theory and the idea that they bumb into each other some times, but I had no idea people were suggesting gravitons could move between "universes".
As to the "evilness" of polygamy - as long as the relationship is honest, I really can't see why that would be "more evil" than a homosexual marriage. Why do most people think that it is more evil?
I don't know that they do.
I see no moral difference whatsoever between a straight marriage, a gay marriage, or a polygamous marriage.
If anybody else does then that is their prerogative. However if their reasoning boils down to their god said it was bad, then there is no justification for getting the government involved.
The major problem is that too many people do not understand that freedom takes a great deal of courage. It takes the courage to say that while I may dislike how you live your life being free means that I have the courage to stay out of it since it isn't any of my fucking business.
That's why these people are trying so hard to restrict freedom-- Because they are cowards.
There really is no other reason to try and ban someone's lifestyle that has zero affect on you.
If you think there is, I'd love to hear it since in the 5 or so years that this debate has been mainstream, not one single person on the anti side has ever proposed any other reasoning than their own cowardice.
It stopped being more than just a legal agreement a long time ago and now only exists as sacred in the minds of people who've never tasted it's reality
It only started being anything but a legal agreement recently, and then only in the minds of some.
Marriage has always been about property rights.
It is neither sacred nor religious although many religions have incorporated it.
All these deluded wackos who try to claim it is are liars.
The really sad part is that they try to claim the moral high ground based on idiotic lies.
Sad.
e.g. gravity has yet to be married to quantum mechanics
Or at least go to dinner and a movie...
Well, they do fuck each other, which is what string theory addresses.
Wow, I haven't heard that theory before (not that I get a memo about all the new happenings or anything).
Do you have a (readable) link to some more detail on that?
MS SQL server is a good example, it has stayed on the top because it has alot of features other databases dont have, they got it up to the top fast (with features) and havent really touched it lately.
The problem with this is that MS SQL Server is not now, nor has it ever been, on top.
Oracle is still mopping the floor with it.
Also, MS has never made money off of it. It's still a loss only funded by monopoly profits on the only products they have that actually do turn a profit: Windows and Office.
If you recall during the Clinton administration, CNN was constantly referred to as the Clinton News Network because of their leniency. Clinton was also called Slick-Willy quite frequently because accusations against him just slid right off.
CNN was called that only by the most extremist right wingers. Nobody with any sense called it that.
Accusations did slide off him, but that's because, for the most part, they were completely bullshit accusations.
They never even would have been reported had the press done any sort of sanity check on the whole thing.
Add in the fact that they were like vultures on the whole Monica thing when, had they even a scrap of objectivity, they would have rousted the slimebags who wasted millions of dollars trying to nail a president for a blowjob because * they couldn't find anything else*
However when it comes to their treatment of Bush, the one network with the integrity to air an unflattering story is still being attacked over one piece of evidence which was inaccurately refered to as the actual document even though *all the words on their document were on the actual document, it was just a different piece of paper.*
Now, please quit the moronic bullshit about a liberal press.
It doesn't exist and hasn't for decades.