"1) republicans say that democrats use class politics, but in fact democrats haven't done so in decades. Questioning this administration's tax policies, or its response to Katrina, is not stirring class or race resentment."
Geez, someone's going to accuse me of being a republican, but what the hell:
You cannot be serious. Decades? You cannot be serious. Any initiative to reduce federal taxes sets off a dozen speeches about the "richest one percent", "benefits the super-rich"... etc.
Now: in my opinion, the only thing dumber than tax-and-spend is cut-taxes-and-spend, but trotting out these evergreens about how wealthy people can buy a car with their tax savings, but the poor can only buy a muffler... Gimme a break.
"Questioning its response to Katrina" is -- in my opinion -- essential. In my opinion the administration jactup the response to Katrina. But "George Bush does not care about black people" is blaming on racism what can be accounted for by incompetence.
"Nobody lingers in a cloud of automobile pollution"
Um... everyone in Dallas does. And until the new regs kick in, everyone in LA will, too. It's not as concentrated as sucking on a tailpipe, but it is 24/7
"In other words, because people on both sides make ridiculous arguments, we should disregard reasonable arguments made by either side."
My statements are merely in opposition to GP's contention that the Democratic party is more reasonable/scientific b/c they are less Christian/fundamentalist. Of course both sides occasionally say reasonable things. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh both occasionally say reasonable things.
"I challenge you to come up with any that don't involve "injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions". For one thing, neither flag burning nor gay marriage is a problem that needs solving in the first place."
You somehow misunderstood my whole position. I agree with you completely on this point.
"Its the speed of orbit, and reentry from that speed, that makes this hard."
Heh... I'm guessing you won the X Prize for suborbital flight, then? Was it easy?
"I see neither as being relevant to the discussion ("class & race resentment" versus "faith and morals"), please explain why either one is "scientific" or "nonscientific" at all."
When a compassionate conservative serves up the latest flagburning/gay marriage amendment in the midst of a sermon about our national religious heritage, she is relying on warm fuzzy emotions to win people over, rather than an analysis of the rights of the involved parties.
When a compassionate liberal accuses Bush & FEMA of racism in their mishandling of Hurricane Katrina recovery, she is injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions.
"Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations"
I'm no republican, but I can't accept this. It's probably true that Christianity is not going to be the non-scientific thing that Democrats base their decisions on, but that doesn't mean they're any more scientific than the pubs. Consider
-I see dems using class & race resentment to rile people up as often as the pubs use 'faith & morals'
-Conservative fiscal policy -- generally speaking -- has some economic basis, while social-program expansion is generally based on sob stories.
I don't think the idea that one party is more scientific in their approach is *at *all tenable.
I think proportional voting systems would do a lot to help this. For awhile at least, the two parties will be sending in candidates of the second type you describe. Partisan voters will fall in line, as usual. But almost everyone's *second choice is going to be a person from a minor party, rather than the other major party candidate.
It's noticeably better than their DSL but if they need to dismantle core Net principles like network neutrality in order to "incentivize" FiOS then they can bite my bum.
There's a decent amount of cc-licensed material out there. Televisions that are on in the background, music on a bus, etc. I've heard that clearing rights for this stuff takes up an obscene amount of time and money.
Sometimes you gotta bite the bullet because you gotta have a particular clip with some resonance but just as often you only need something that looks professional
"Finding the proper minimum is a job for skilled economists and other experts, and it's not easy."
You might enjoy John McMillan's Reinventing the Bazaar
Yeah, I guess I expressed myself poorly. My question is "how come whenever anyone proposes stuff like net neutrality or alternative fuels the conservatives reject these ideas, saying "the free market will take care of it"?
"There is no free market as long as the government exercises the authority to tax in any manner and for any legislated-moraility reason, other than a flat basis and for Constitutionally mandated purposes (and there ain't many). It's only "kind of free", as in on-the-surface."
That's what I thought. So how come whenever anyone proposes stuff like net neutrality or alternative fuels the conservatives say "the free market will take care of it"?
My memory is fuzzy, but I think one of the initiatives meant to encourage alternative-fuel R&D was a big subsidy for that industry. This gets added to our tax bill alongside the giant subsidies to the oil industry.
I don't get it. If you want to level the playing field, why not retract the fossil fuel subsidies?
On a sidenote: do conservatives really think the US has a "free market" when all this govt. money is being pumped into damn near every industry?
Slashdot Mirror
Internet Foxplorer
Here's a better link, since FTR's css is gimpy in the fox: http://blog.flopturnriver.com/post/LeFou/790/Ban-E mail1
I got this email, and ended up losing all my money. Here's the story
"1) republicans say that democrats use class politics, but in fact democrats haven't done so in decades. Questioning this administration's tax policies, or its response to Katrina, is not stirring class or race resentment."
Geez, someone's going to accuse me of being a republican, but what the hell:
You cannot be serious. Decades? You cannot be serious. Any initiative to reduce federal taxes sets off a dozen speeches about the "richest one percent", "benefits the super-rich"... etc.
Now: in my opinion, the only thing dumber than tax-and-spend is cut-taxes-and-spend, but trotting out these evergreens about how wealthy people can buy a car with their tax savings, but the poor can only buy a muffler... Gimme a break.
"Questioning its response to Katrina" is -- in my opinion -- essential. In my opinion the administration jactup the response to Katrina. But "George Bush does not care about black people" is blaming on racism what can be accounted for by incompetence.
We don't have time for niceties when shooting for fp or sp or tp.
tag the article with something sly Mine was "tomcruise" 'cause I couldn't remember his character's name in WotW
I'm a Frenchman. And a Spanishman.
... Willkommen unsere neuen Insekt overlords
I remember thinking: LOL n00bz! A CD player in a car?!?!? Imbeciles!!! That'll be skipping like mad all day!!! wtfpwnt
Just yesterday I ran across Brills Content, May 2001. page 123
"We tried out one portable MP3 player that lets you walk around with the equivalent of 150 CDs in your back pocket."
Sweet! I gotta get one of those!
"Nobody lingers in a cloud of automobile pollution"
Um... everyone in Dallas does. And until the new regs kick in, everyone in LA will, too. It's not as concentrated as sucking on a tailpipe, but it is 24/7
"In other words, because people on both sides make ridiculous arguments, we should disregard reasonable arguments made by either side."
My statements are merely in opposition to GP's contention that the Democratic party is more reasonable/scientific b/c they are less Christian/fundamentalist. Of course both sides occasionally say reasonable things. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh both occasionally say reasonable things.
"I challenge you to come up with any that don't involve "injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions". For one thing, neither flag burning nor gay marriage is a problem that needs solving in the first place."
You somehow misunderstood my whole position. I agree with you completely on this point.
No, with my luck GP will actually be the guy who won the X Prize.
"Its the speed of orbit, and reentry from that speed, that makes this hard." Heh... I'm guessing you won the X Prize for suborbital flight, then? Was it easy?
"I see neither as being relevant to the discussion ("class & race resentment" versus "faith and morals"), please explain why either one is "scientific" or "nonscientific" at all."
When a compassionate conservative serves up the latest flagburning/gay marriage amendment in the midst of a sermon about our national religious heritage, she is relying on warm fuzzy emotions to win people over, rather than an analysis of the rights of the involved parties.
When a compassionate liberal accuses Bush & FEMA of racism in their mishandling of Hurricane Katrina recovery, she is injecting a highly-charged and divisive element into what should be an analysis of problems and solutions.
And so on.
"Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations" I'm no republican, but I can't accept this. It's probably true that Christianity is not going to be the non-scientific thing that Democrats base their decisions on, but that doesn't mean they're any more scientific than the pubs. Consider -I see dems using class & race resentment to rile people up as often as the pubs use 'faith & morals' -Conservative fiscal policy -- generally speaking -- has some economic basis, while social-program expansion is generally based on sob stories. I don't think the idea that one party is more scientific in their approach is *at *all tenable.
I think proportional voting systems would do a lot to help this. For awhile at least, the two parties will be sending in candidates of the second type you describe. Partisan voters will fall in line, as usual. But almost everyone's *second choice is going to be a person from a minor party, rather than the other major party candidate.
It's noticeably better than their DSL but if they need to dismantle core Net principles like network neutrality in order to "incentivize" FiOS then they can bite my bum.
There's a decent amount of cc-licensed material out there. Televisions that are on in the background, music on a bus, etc. I've heard that clearing rights for this stuff takes up an obscene amount of time and money. Sometimes you gotta bite the bullet because you gotta have a particular clip with some resonance but just as often you only need something that looks professional
Some of the exposition dialog was *painful. Now that's over with, though, so I have hopes for later episoden
"Finding the proper minimum is a job for skilled economists and other experts, and it's not easy." You might enjoy John McMillan's Reinventing the Bazaar
Yeah, I guess I expressed myself poorly. My question is "how come whenever anyone proposes stuff like net neutrality or alternative fuels the conservatives reject these ideas, saying "the free market will take care of it"?
I was wondering what I'm going to do with my Windows machine...
"There is no free market as long as the government exercises the authority to tax in any manner and for any legislated-moraility reason, other than a flat basis and for Constitutionally mandated purposes (and there ain't many). It's only "kind of free", as in on-the-surface." That's what I thought. So how come whenever anyone proposes stuff like net neutrality or alternative fuels the conservatives say "the free market will take care of it"?
My memory is fuzzy, but I think one of the initiatives meant to encourage alternative-fuel R&D was a big subsidy for that industry. This gets added to our tax bill alongside the giant subsidies to the oil industry.
I don't get it. If you want to level the playing field, why not retract the fossil fuel subsidies?
On a sidenote: do conservatives really think the US has a "free market" when all this govt. money is being pumped into damn near every industry?