The world isn't that crowded out here in middle America. There is still land for a decent price, jobs, business opportunities, etc.
That said:
1. A purely leftist society still has rich people. The rich in leftist societies have even closer ties to government. Corruption exists in leftist society and government, just as in any place that has humans and human nature.
2. A mostly free society, which of course must have a free market or it wouldn't be free, has rich people. Imagine that.
One thing that I've noticed about Capitalist countries is that the majority of people aren't interested in starting their own business. They want to immediately get a job working for someone else, have kids, and start buying X-Boxes, big screen TVs, nice car, etc. Many don't even bother to get an education, or at least one in a field that is in demand. Now I hear them complaining because they aren't rich, never mind the fact that they live pretty well compared to their parents, who lived better than their grandparents, etc. (My grandparents lived in a Mill town, working for the wealthy Mill owner, living in the houses that he set up for them. They didn't have many choices, and were literally dirt poor.)
So the rich are the ones that create the jobs that allow you to raise your children, buy your X-Box, buy your car, buy your house, etc. Who else is going to create those jobs that keep you working? The government? Some Collectivist coop? Whenever you take the incentive away, you take the jobs away. Fewer jobs means fewer opportunities. Fewer opportunities means more despair. You think your life is bad now?
I'll give you Rupert and AM talk radio and raise you most of Hollywood, most major news papers (including the New York Times), PBS, NPR, Google, Yahoo, most of Silicon Valley, most of the major networks but Fox News, most of the Music Industry, the Universities, etc. Talk radio is really the only place we have to go to vent our frustration.
No Child Left Behind was supported by Ted Kennedy and Democrats. It is not really a conservative solution. We like freedom of choice, something that Leftists seem to hate (except when it comes to abortion, sex, and drugs) because they fear losing their captive pupils.
You are right that people with a thirst for power love coercion. While it is true that money and power rules, why do you think that it won't under your dream fantasy ideal world? Human nature will still be there. The only way to deal with it is to limit the size and power of government. Instead, leftists want to expand government. Imagine all that corruption AND a bigger more intrusive government! Our founders understood that humans are inherently evil. They set up our government with this in mind. This is why there are checks and balances and gridlock.
The only thing that will change if your guy or gal gets the White House, besides the expanding of a corruptible government, is the press coverage, which will paint you a more rosy picture for a while and make you feel like things are better. You won't hear all those news stories meant to damage the current administration.
Collectivism must be coerced, it isn't natural. Free societies allow people to voluntarily live in a collectivist society (i.e. Communes), and I don't see a lot of people clamoring to live in those places. The ones that still survive have high turnover rates.
I hear people say things like "real Communism would work if people just give it a chance." Of course, then there's the old "well, it can only work if everyone is Communist." The truth is that it destroys people. Even "Communist-lite" Europe would be in very bad shape if it weren't for the fact that they leach off of more Capitalist countries. (France sells their wine and cheese to wealthy Capitalists, for instance.)
As far as subversion goes, it works both ways: Leftism has a foothold in all of our institutions (education, media, government) and they have learned to use political correctness and Orwellian lexicon to try to control people rather than physical coercion. Either way, it is coercion. Leftists love coercion.
Um, OK, and you did your Phd work in meteorology/climate science where?
You mean like all those "consensus" people in the medical "community" who were sending women to an early DEATH by giving them hormone therapy and causing them to get breast cancer all these years?
If your concern is memory leaks, just use C++ and smart pointers.
Tell that to the Firefox developers.
Switching JVM versions is like switching processors, OS versions, and/or hardware. We had a C program executable that wouldn't work with a new minor version of Red Hat Linux. We also couldn't take that C executable and run it in windows or the Mac. Java wins hands down as far as that stuff goes.
Object oriented languages that are high level result in lots of objects being created, regardless of garbage collection. Bloat drives RAM, hard drive, and processor prices down, so I'm not complaining.
Guess what? There's a restaurant crisis in rural areas. Single people can't go eat out every night without going to the same restaurant! Oh my! Guess what else? There's a dance club crisis in rural areas. Single people cannot go hopping to all the gay dance clubs like rural people can! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
In the same token, there's a nature crisis in urban areas. Urbanites can't own horses and chickens in suburbia (unless they are recent immigrants who think they can)! There's a nature crisis I tell you!
Java itself is behind the scenes of many websites (javascript is also, but it usually runs on the client machine in the browser, as you know). Once you start doing anything big that requires tons of transactions/two-phase commits, fail over and recovery, message queuing, remote method invocation, security, etc., Java (specifically J2EE) becomes a godsend.
Secular liberal socialists everywhere, cameras everywhere, political correctness everywhere, moral decline, a national ID system, high taxes, more government control over our lives, and runaway government. George Orwell was right. The Bible was right. The mark of the beast is coming. God help us all.
If everything that can exist does exist, then a world that looks like it evolved but was created by God can exist. I know Atheists who believe in this theory, yet deny that there is (or could be) a God. You and they are obviously just bigoted against Christians. That is the real answer.
The earth's climate has always been changing. What you mean to imply is that us evil humans are causing it. While I do think that it is wasteful to fly Al Gore around in a big jet, I also think that the whole 'blame humans for everything' environmental movement is a bunch of leftist rubbish. You go live in a commune and worship mother earth, we will live in freedom and enjoy our toys. Quit trying to control people. You and your leftist buddies obviously have control issues.
Climate scientists are relying on inaccurate measurements and invalid statistical methods to fudge the numbers for what constitutes a "global temperature." The IPCC is just a leftist UN political power grab. The UN is a joke anyway. The sun is reaching its solar minimum, and before long everyone will be screaming "global cooling" again. Should we be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere with abandon? Of course not. However, wealthy freedom loving capitalist countries are cleaner countries, and they get cleaner as people demand it through the free market, etc. Get over it.
We still can. It is not in Sunni's best interest for us to leave because they will be slaughtered by the majority Shiites. Once the Loony Left started inadvertently playing "bad cop," threatening to pull the funding and pull our troops out, the Sunnis took notice and started turning on the insurgency. The Shiites are actually two groups: those who align with Iran, and those who don't. The Shiites who don't align with Iran want us there because they don't want Iran to control Iraq via the other Shiite block (Al Sadr's people). The Kurds want us there for obvious reasons. The Kurds, Sunnis, and non-Sadr Shiites will iron out their differences because it is in their best interest.
Iran is now taking notice that we are making big arms deals with Saudi Arabia (Sunni), Egypt (Sunni), and Israel. If we leave and a civil war breaks out, the Saudis and Syria will jump in and protect the Sunnis and Iran will jump in to protect the Shiites. The whole middle east will go to war. We need to start talking victory, not defeat.
I am no "neocon," but Ron Paul is just wrong. Let's go through the list:
"1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual."
Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
"2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so."
Most neocons are not for redrawing boundaries, just replacing dictators with democracies.
"Although the United States never officially declared war on Tripoli, Jefferson dispatched an American squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean Sea. Several battles took place, and the United States imposed a naval blockade to keep goods and services from entering or leaving Tripoli. United States Marines actually seized Derna, the principal city of Tripoli, on April 26, 1805. Finally, on June 4, 1805, a peace treaty was signed which gave the United States the freedom of the Mediterranean and relinquished Tripoli's claims for tribute."
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
During WWII, Japan attacked us, not Germany. We went after Germany first. Preemption is not always a bad thing. There's nothing preemptive about the Iraq war though. Saddam had attacked Kuwait, and he signed a surrender agreement that he did not abide by (he also defied 12 UN resolutions).
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means--that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
This is actually more of an attribute of the left. They sign off on the war resolution, the patriot act, the echelon spy program, etc., then they go to the media and scream civil rights violations and neocon conspiracy.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
Yet they are accused of giving the rich 'tax cuts' and being against minimum wage increases.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
Yes, just the other day Bush said we should attack Cuba and steal their Sugar Cane for our ethanol production. (Oh wait, it was JFK who did the whole Cuba thing.)
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
Sounds like he is describing Hillary Clinton, Nanci Pelosi, John Kerry, etc. Hillary told Code Pink that she did 10 years of research and that Saddam must be removed, weeks before the invasion. John Kerry said he would have voted for the war even knowing what he knows now, during the 2004 election. Nanci Pelosi told the press that there would not be endless investigations if the Dems got control. I could go on and on.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
Compassionate conservatives like Bush are big spenders and not ideological conservatives. This is obvious to all true conservatives.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
Yes, they make up phrases like "It takes a village to raise a child" so that they don't have to spell out S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M to the public. Oops, that was Hillary. Where does Ron Paul get this from? Citation? It sounds more like Fabian Socialist ideology such as that of Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
Most people should feel this way. There's a place in hell reserved for those who maintain their neutrality during a time of deep moral crisis. [Dante]
I could go on, but you get the point. I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do.
My example with schools has to do with private vs. public education, as it serves as an analogy of what happens over the long term when the government provides a service. Socialized health care is another great example, as it would be even more of a disaster if it weren't for our private sector propping it up by creating great medicines and technologies. That is for another discussion however. Your example of success in WA is a very short term example, but I would be against it even if it were successful over the very long run.
Data does not have to be a monopoly situation and neither does medicine, insurance, or energy (oil is a different matter because it only comes from certain regions and isn't renewable). The goal is to make the private sector compete in such a way that data is a cheap commodity that anyone can afford and have access to (same for medicine, etc.). The answer to a monopoly isn't "government providing the service," even if the government can do a better job or is more efficient. Tyranny of the majority cannot coexist with individual liberty. Our Constitution was not written to grant government power, it was written to limit government from intruding on individual liberty. Everyone is a minority in some way or another. Just because you don't mind giving up some of your freedoms for that warm and fuzzy feeling of "forced sharing," doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way that you do.
1. Technology changes fast, government is slow. Muni-broadband will result in people paying for outdated technology that they won't use. Don't believe me? Go use the computer at your local public library.
2. People who can afford better will be forced to pay for something they don't use.
3. Socialist leftist liberals will then complain because the poor is forced to use old sub-par technology, while the rich send their kids to good private schools (Oops, I meant to write 'purchase the latest broadband technology service from the superior private sector'). See a pattern?
4. The service will be like every service the government offers. Haven't you ever stood in line at the DMV?
5. The real cost will be much greater because the government is inefficient. People won't care because they think the 'rich are paying for it' or whatever, of course.
6. You would stifle innovation if you do not allow third parties to compete to offer you better service than the government.
1. What you have is called "Bush Derangement Syndrome." The dirty little secret is that the government makes more money on oil than the oil companies. They make upwards of 0.50 a gallon tax, which amounts to 20% or more per gallon profit, and they don't even have to drill it or transport it. The oil companies have been making 8%, which isn't really all that much of a profit compared to other companies. Newspapers, even with the internet competition, pull in around 20% profit.
2. Democrats control congress, they signed the war bill, they haven't cut funding. There are recordings of Hillary talking to code pink about how Saddam must be removed and how she did 10 years of research. (Look it up on YouTube.) John Kerry, in 2004, said he "would have voted for the war even knowing what he knows now" [paraphrase]. Clinton, while president, dropped bombs on Saddam and talked of his weapons of mass destruction. Clinton gave Haliburton 'no bid' contracts too, btw.
I am no big fan of G.W., mostly because of his stance on immigration and his big spending. He has been incompetent as far as executing the Iraq War and Katrina (even though I believe the Louisiana governor and New Orleans mayor are to blame mostly). I don't like what he tried to pull with Harriet Myers.
As far as 'evil corporations' go:
I am for repealing the income tax amendment. This would take money out of Washington and lessens corporate welfare and corruption by lobbyists. These entities are only there because Washington controls so much money and they want some of it. Make the government stay out of our lives and make them only protect and govern, and then you won't have to worry about 'evil corporations' and the rich controlling government and conspiring against us. They would not have a reason to.
As far as socialism goes (which the left seems to be veering towards when they talk about 'evil corporations' and taxing the rich):
Socialism is just a way for the rich to use government to keep the old European class system around. Socialism keeps most others from becoming wealthy by acting like the government will take care of everything for them. Socialism is about coercion, tyranny of the majority. Socialist countries still have rich people and poor people. In fact, they generally have more poor people than our country.
Our constitution was not written to grant government power. It was written to limit it and protect individual liberty. We have slowly moved away from that mindset. It is sad really.
1. George Washington marched troops into people's houses and demanded taxes on their stills. (Whiskey Rebellion) 2. George Washington talked of God and Faith in many of his speeches, just like the evil Religious Rightist G.W. 3. F.D.R. put Japanese into camps and opened people's mail during WWII. He preemptively attacked Germany, even though it was the Japanese who attacked us. 4. Kennedy got us into Vietnam, and preemptively attacked Cuba, then left people for dead and denied it. 5. The evil big telco and big oil provide jobs and products that people want. Congress, which has been controlled by Democrats 85% of the last century, made the rules that big telco and big oil follow. 6. Marxism and Leftism have produced more poor people and dictatorships than Capitalism ever has.
Yes, this is what the Democrat President, "the great society" Johnson did, after he had Kennedy assassinated of course.
You are a prime example of moral relativism at its finest.
Of course these people wanted Communism. Nobody disputes that. Communism was fast becoming the popular thing among poor countries. We were trying to prevent a domino effect. Marxism relies on the whole world being communist. If you really think that we were just a little better than Stalin, then you are a fool. Why do you think that Eastern Europe gave Bush such a warm reception just recently?
Actually, McCarthy was right in a lot of ways. Here's an example:
1. Political Correctness infiltrates all aspects of our lives. The Orwellian "control the lexicon, control the people" thing. 2. Cameras being put on every street corner (just look at Britain). 3. Leftism posing as Environmentalism (anti-Capitalism, pro-taxes, pro-UN control over US). 4. Judges treating the Constitution as a "living document" so that they can legislate from the bench (usurping Democracy). 5. Intentionally confusing "rights" as "privileges" and not teaching the difference. Is owning a firearm a right or a privilege? 6. Dumbing down our children in public schools, emphasizing diversity of skin color and sexual orientation, racial injustices, etc., above anything else. 7. Replacing our religious culture with secularism and the state. Attempt to keep politicians and public figures from promoting God or faith. Emphasizing "separation of church and state" and conveniently ignoring the disestablishment clause and misinterpreting the free exercise clause. 8. Attacking traditional family. Telling women that they don't need men, emphasizing alternate lifestyles, abortion on demand, etc. 9. Push for socialized health care. 10. Blame America first and attempt to weaken the US and strengthen the UN as being some "more just" institution. 11. Push for open borders. 12. Attacking Big Corporations and Capitalism, bashing the rich and playing class warfare.
1. George Washington was very religious, and there is a lot of proof that he was a Christian. He spoke of his faith in his inaugural address, asked for a King James Bible, and began the tradition of saying "so help me God." He spoke of the creator more times than George W. ever did. Although a few of the founding fathers were Deist, this was the exception and not the rule. In fact, those who were Deist can be divided into Christian Deists and non-Christian Deists. Saying that you are a Christian Deist is like saying you are non-denominational. You have to understand what was happening with the church at that time.
2. There is no separation between church and state like most people want you to think. Congress cannot DISESTABLISH religion as much as it cannot establish it. The disestablishment clause is often conveniently ignored. George Washington's speeches prove this, our historical government documents prove this, state constitutions that mention God prove this, our money (in God we trust) proves this, other official's speeches prove this, the prayer in congress proves this, the inaugural process proves this. In fact, the Supreme Court violated the first amendment by ruling that that Alabama Judge could not display the 10 commandments in his courtroom. The Supreme Court was actually making a legal ruling, whereas that Judge was not. The next Judge to succeeded him had every right to take it down and put up a Buddha statue (albeit he would probably get flack from citizens). The government IS the people. If the majority is Christian, then the government will look and sound Christian. This is evident in our nation's history. Congress just cannot make laws establishing or disestablishing religion.
1) He was in violation of 12 UN resolutions as well as his surrender agreement. We could not verify that he destroyed the weapons that we verified he had during the first gulf war. We had proof that he had many at that time, and could not verify that he got rid of all of them. We could not take the chance after 9/11.
2) While I agree that it doesn't make it right, if other people did it to then why do you choose to have selective moral outrage? These people lied, the press lied, our intelligence lied, German intelligence lied, British intelligence lied. The UN was corrupt in oil for food dealings. France and Germany (our "allies") were making secret deals with Saddam behind our backs. Where's the outrage over this?
3) You have it backwards. The rich are who create the wealth in this country, and we owe them for giving us the opportunity to feed our families and buy big screen TVs. The average person doesn't apparently want to start new business, they'd rather work for someone else. The country is not a limited pie of wealth. Google didn't take wealth from some rich guy when they started their business. They created it, and they employed people and payed them a good salary. You are spewing Stalinist propaganda that only makes everyone broke in the end.
4) You mentioned Bush screwing up in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were allied in Afghanistan.
5) Proof: France and Germany were dealing with Saddam, and the UN had its own little oil for food racketeer going...
6) You call Bush a liar, then hand me a lie:
A Portion of George Washington's personal prayers:
"O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon."...
[from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752]
In fact, in his first inaugural address:
..."it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government"...
What if Bush said something like that today in one of his speeches?
7) Apparently, you are not aware of the pork that was included in the "surrender bill" handed to Bush? How about Murtha's latest deal for his district?
You are the one being conned. Early mankind used spirituality to explain the laws of nature because they didn't know any different. Religion allowed societies to survive because it provided rules to live by that were built from experience and passed down from generation to generation (so that each generation would not repeat the same mistakes). Although people forgot why they had these rules to begin with, they followed them because they were part of their religious beliefs. Now that we have science, we throw out all those rules and call them religious dogma, not realizing that they served a greater purpose in society. Now we follow new rules made up by special interest groups, the media, the medical industry, sociologists and scientists. The rules are generally just pseudo-science dogma based on what is popular at the time. It will not be long before we suffer the consequences of our actions.
BTW: Even Atheists have a god, they just don't realize it. Everyone bows to the alter of something.
1. You mean "invading a sovereign nation that invaded a sovereign nation, and then signed a surrender agreement with us after we kicked them out of that sovereign nation." One of the agreements was to show the world that they had dismantled their weapons programs. Twelve UN resolutions were passed and ignored. Bill Clinton had even ordered an air attack on Iraq prior to leaving office. Most Democrats signed the war resolution. Hillary Clinton was recorded saying to Code Pink that "she had done 10 years of research and that invading Iraq was the right thing to do." John Kerry, during the 2004 election run, said that he would have voted for the war even knowing what he knows now.
2. Democrats signed on to the Patriot Act. The Echelon spy program was a Clinton program. FDR had people's mail read during WWII, put Japanese in camps, etc. Al Qaeda beheads its prisoners, yet you don't seem to mind that they do not apply the Geneva conventions to our soldiers. Nobody seems to care if our borders are secure.
3. Tax relief was the only reason why the excesses of Clinton's dot com and Enron boom did not kill our economy. The government has been gaining tax revenue as a result. The top 1% foot over 60% of the bill, how much do you feel they should be footing?
4. The Taliban were defeated in days without the need for foot soldiers. It was brilliant. Kudos to Bush.
5. You mean "alienating socialist so-called allies that want to weaken us using the UN and EU."
6. George Washington was more religious than George Bush. If anything, others pander to the godless left, not the other way around.
7. The democrats are spending like drunken sailors now. Are you happy?
Christians claim to have one, but it is flawed, contradictory and they don't follow it, therefore, they *are* hypocrites.
Humans, Atheists, Leftists, and Agnostics are flawed and contradictory. Feel free to not be any of those too.
Whenever one strives to be more perfect, they will eventually fail. Christians understand that they are imperfect and are sinners. They are told to be thy brother's keeper. Therefore, they will always be hypocrites, flawed, and imperfect. Unlike you, we understand this.
If I was spouting insane delusional contradictory nonsense, or claiming that magical invisible fairies were talking to me or any of the other then, indeed, I'd hope that sane decent people would try to help me.
Sitting down with someone and attempting to convey truth is different than hurling insults. If being insulted by someone is fine with you, then I suppose you are not a hypocrite. However, the golden rule should not really be read as "do unto others as you'd have done unto you personally," it should be read as "do unto others what a person in general would want done to unto them." This changes the statement from one of morally relativism to one that is morally absolute for a particular society.
So, basically, you have no point, you make no sense and you're just mad that I pointed out a couple of the deep seated hypocricies and contradictions inherent in a myth you were silly enough to think was true.
No, I just point out that all humans are flawed, and that wickedness exists in humans themselves as opposed to their belief systems. People do evil things in the name of religion, but they also do evil regardless of religion. Taking away a belief system, and telling people that morality is relative, only results in an excuse for more wickedness. In fact, civilization itself is a 'myth' that was invented so as to make us act less like animals. If moral code comes down to whatever laws are passed, then we are in big trouble.
1. When the "wicked" get punished according to one's own moral code, it is called justice.
2. When the "wicked" get punished according to another's moral code, one which goes against your own moral code, it is called injustice.
3. Atheists and agnostics have no absolute, written, unchanging, published moral code, so they can never be called hypocrites. They have no problem calling everyone else a hypocrite though. (They act as if they subscribe to the golden rule, but they really don't. Calling someone's deeply held religious beliefs a 'myth' goes against the golden rule, for instance.)
4. Moral relativism is fine with leftists and atheists as long as it does not go against them.
5. Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin: "If man is this wicked with religion, I'd be afraid to see what man would be like without it."
Slashdot Mirror
The world isn't that crowded out here in middle America. There is still land for a decent price, jobs, business opportunities, etc.
That said:
1. A purely leftist society still has rich people. The rich in leftist societies have even closer ties to government. Corruption exists in leftist society and government, just as in any place that has humans and human nature.
2. A mostly free society, which of course must have a free market or it wouldn't be free, has rich people. Imagine that.
One thing that I've noticed about Capitalist countries is that the majority of people aren't interested in starting their own business. They want to immediately get a job working for someone else, have kids, and start buying X-Boxes, big screen TVs, nice car, etc. Many don't even bother to get an education, or at least one in a field that is in demand. Now I hear them complaining because they aren't rich, never mind the fact that they live pretty well compared to their parents, who lived better than their grandparents, etc. (My grandparents lived in a Mill town, working for the wealthy Mill owner, living in the houses that he set up for them. They didn't have many choices, and were literally dirt poor.)
So the rich are the ones that create the jobs that allow you to raise your children, buy your X-Box, buy your car, buy your house, etc. Who else is going to create those jobs that keep you working? The government? Some Collectivist coop? Whenever you take the incentive away, you take the jobs away. Fewer jobs means fewer opportunities. Fewer opportunities means more despair. You think your life is bad now?
I'll give you Rupert and AM talk radio and raise you most of Hollywood, most major news papers (including the New York Times), PBS, NPR, Google, Yahoo, most of Silicon Valley, most of the major networks but Fox News, most of the Music Industry, the Universities, etc. Talk radio is really the only place we have to go to vent our frustration.
No Child Left Behind was supported by Ted Kennedy and Democrats. It is not really a conservative solution. We like freedom of choice, something that Leftists seem to hate (except when it comes to abortion, sex, and drugs) because they fear losing their captive pupils.
You are right that people with a thirst for power love coercion. While it is true that money and power rules, why do you think that it won't under your dream fantasy ideal world? Human nature will still be there. The only way to deal with it is to limit the size and power of government. Instead, leftists want to expand government. Imagine all that corruption AND a bigger more intrusive government! Our founders understood that humans are inherently evil. They set up our government with this in mind. This is why there are checks and balances and gridlock.
The only thing that will change if your guy or gal gets the White House, besides the expanding of a corruptible government, is the press coverage, which will paint you a more rosy picture for a while and make you feel like things are better. You won't hear all those news stories meant to damage the current administration.
Collectivism must be coerced, it isn't natural. Free societies allow people to voluntarily live in a collectivist society (i.e. Communes), and I don't see a lot of people clamoring to live in those places. The ones that still survive have high turnover rates.
I hear people say things like "real Communism would work if people just give it a chance." Of course, then there's the old "well, it can only work if everyone is Communist." The truth is that it destroys people. Even "Communist-lite" Europe would be in very bad shape if it weren't for the fact that they leach off of more Capitalist countries. (France sells their wine and cheese to wealthy Capitalists, for instance.)
As far as subversion goes, it works both ways: Leftism has a foothold in all of our institutions (education, media, government) and they have learned to use political correctness and Orwellian lexicon to try to control people rather than physical coercion. Either way, it is coercion. Leftists love coercion.
Um, OK, and you did your Phd work in meteorology/climate science where?
You mean like all those "consensus" people in the medical "community" who were sending women to an early DEATH by giving them hormone therapy and causing them to get breast cancer all these years?
Which is the giant greenhouse elephant in the room, but nobody pays attention to it because it doesn't help the world socialist cause.
Even if he is right, this is just more proof that socialists really are dictator types who want to decide for others.
If your concern is memory leaks, just use C++ and smart pointers.
Tell that to the Firefox developers.
Switching JVM versions is like switching processors, OS versions, and/or hardware. We had a C program executable that wouldn't work with a new minor version of Red Hat Linux. We also couldn't take that C executable and run it in windows or the Mac. Java wins hands down as far as that stuff goes.
Object oriented languages that are high level result in lots of objects being created, regardless of garbage collection. Bloat drives RAM, hard drive, and processor prices down, so I'm not complaining.
Guess what? There's a restaurant crisis in rural areas. Single people can't go eat out every night without going to the same restaurant! Oh my! Guess what else? There's a dance club crisis in rural areas. Single people cannot go hopping to all the gay dance clubs like rural people can! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
In the same token, there's a nature crisis in urban areas. Urbanites can't own horses and chickens in suburbia (unless they are recent immigrants who think they can)! There's a nature crisis I tell you!
Java itself is behind the scenes of many websites (javascript is also, but it usually runs on the client machine in the browser, as you know). Once you start doing anything big that requires tons of transactions/two-phase commits, fail over and recovery, message queuing, remote method invocation, security, etc., Java (specifically J2EE) becomes a godsend.
Secular liberal socialists everywhere, cameras everywhere, political correctness everywhere, moral decline, a national ID system, high taxes, more government control over our lives, and runaway government. George Orwell was right. The Bible was right. The mark of the beast is coming. God help us all.
If everything that can exist does exist, then a world that looks like it evolved but was created by God can exist. I know Atheists who believe in this theory, yet deny that there is (or could be) a God. You and they are obviously just bigoted against Christians. That is the real answer.
The earth's climate has always been changing. What you mean to imply is that us evil humans are causing it. While I do think that it is wasteful to fly Al Gore around in a big jet, I also think that the whole 'blame humans for everything' environmental movement is a bunch of leftist rubbish. You go live in a commune and worship mother earth, we will live in freedom and enjoy our toys. Quit trying to control people. You and your leftist buddies obviously have control issues.
Climate scientists are relying on inaccurate measurements and invalid statistical methods to fudge the numbers for what constitutes a "global temperature." The IPCC is just a leftist UN political power grab. The UN is a joke anyway. The sun is reaching its solar minimum, and before long everyone will be screaming "global cooling" again. Should we be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere with abandon? Of course not. However, wealthy freedom loving capitalist countries are cleaner countries, and they get cleaner as people demand it through the free market, etc. Get over it.
if we could have
We still can. It is not in Sunni's best interest for us to leave because they will be slaughtered by the majority Shiites. Once the Loony Left started inadvertently playing "bad cop," threatening to pull the funding and pull our troops out, the Sunnis took notice and started turning on the insurgency. The Shiites are actually two groups: those who align with Iran, and those who don't. The Shiites who don't align with Iran want us there because they don't want Iran to control Iraq via the other Shiite block (Al Sadr's people). The Kurds want us there for obvious reasons. The Kurds, Sunnis, and non-Sadr Shiites will iron out their differences because it is in their best interest.
Iran is now taking notice that we are making big arms deals with Saudi Arabia (Sunni), Egypt (Sunni), and Israel. If we leave and a civil war breaks out, the Saudis and Syria will jump in and protect the Sunnis and Iran will jump in to protect the Shiites. The whole middle east will go to war. We need to start talking victory, not defeat.
I am no "neocon," but Ron Paul is just wrong. Let's go through the list:
1 804/In1804/HeadlinesJeffersonArticle.htm
"1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual."
Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
"2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so."
Most neocons are not for redrawing boundaries, just replacing dictators with democracies.
"Although the United States never officially declared war on Tripoli, Jefferson dispatched an American squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean Sea. Several battles took place, and the United States imposed a naval blockade to keep goods and services from entering or leaving Tripoli. United States Marines actually seized Derna, the principal city of Tripoli, on April 26, 1805. Finally, on June 4, 1805, a peace treaty was signed which gave the United States the freedom of the Mediterranean and relinquished Tripoli's claims for tribute."
From: http://www.nps.gov/archive/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
During WWII, Japan attacked us, not Germany. We went after Germany first. Preemption is not always a bad thing. There's nothing preemptive about the Iraq war though. Saddam had attacked Kuwait, and he signed a surrender agreement that he did not abide by (he also defied 12 UN resolutions).
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means--that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
This is actually more of an attribute of the left. They sign off on the war resolution, the patriot act, the echelon spy program, etc., then they go to the media and scream civil rights violations and neocon conspiracy.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
Yet they are accused of giving the rich 'tax cuts' and being against minimum wage increases.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
Yes, just the other day Bush said we should attack Cuba and steal their Sugar Cane for our ethanol production. (Oh wait, it was JFK who did the whole Cuba thing.)
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
Sounds like he is describing Hillary Clinton, Nanci Pelosi, John Kerry, etc. Hillary told Code Pink that she did 10 years of research and that Saddam must be removed, weeks before the invasion. John Kerry said he would have voted for the war even knowing what he knows now, during the 2004 election. Nanci Pelosi told the press that there would not be endless investigations if the Dems got control. I could go on and on.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
Compassionate conservatives like Bush are big spenders and not ideological conservatives. This is obvious to all true conservatives.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
Yes, they make up phrases like "It takes a village to raise a child" so that they don't have to spell out S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M to the public. Oops, that was Hillary. Where does Ron Paul get this from? Citation? It sounds more like Fabian Socialist ideology such as that of Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
Most people should feel this way. There's a place in hell reserved for those who maintain their neutrality during a time of deep moral crisis. [Dante]
I could go on, but you get the point. I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do.
My example with schools has to do with private vs. public education, as it serves as an analogy of what happens over the long term when the government provides a service. Socialized health care is another great example, as it would be even more of a disaster if it weren't for our private sector propping it up by creating great medicines and technologies. That is for another discussion however. Your example of success in WA is a very short term example, but I would be against it even if it were successful over the very long run.
Data does not have to be a monopoly situation and neither does medicine, insurance, or energy (oil is a different matter because it only comes from certain regions and isn't renewable). The goal is to make the private sector compete in such a way that data is a cheap commodity that anyone can afford and have access to (same for medicine, etc.). The answer to a monopoly isn't "government providing the service," even if the government can do a better job or is more efficient. Tyranny of the majority cannot coexist with individual liberty. Our Constitution was not written to grant government power, it was written to limit government from intruding on individual liberty. Everyone is a minority in some way or another. Just because you don't mind giving up some of your freedoms for that warm and fuzzy feeling of "forced sharing," doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way that you do.
Muni-Broadband is not the solution. Here's why:
1. Technology changes fast, government is slow. Muni-broadband will result in people paying for outdated technology that they won't use. Don't believe me? Go use the computer at your local public library.
2. People who can afford better will be forced to pay for something they don't use.
3. Socialist leftist liberals will then complain because the poor is forced to use old sub-par technology, while the rich send their kids to good private schools (Oops, I meant to write 'purchase the latest broadband technology service from the superior private sector'). See a pattern?
4. The service will be like every service the government offers. Haven't you ever stood in line at the DMV?
5. The real cost will be much greater because the government is inefficient. People won't care because they think the 'rich are paying for it' or whatever, of course.
6. You would stifle innovation if you do not allow third parties to compete to offer you better service than the government.
David
1. What you have is called "Bush Derangement Syndrome." The dirty little secret is that the government makes more money on oil than the oil companies. They make upwards of 0.50 a gallon tax, which amounts to 20% or more per gallon profit, and they don't even have to drill it or transport it. The oil companies have been making 8%, which isn't really all that much of a profit compared to other companies. Newspapers, even with the internet competition, pull in around 20% profit.
2. Democrats control congress, they signed the war bill, they haven't cut funding. There are recordings of Hillary talking to code pink about how Saddam must be removed and how she did 10 years of research. (Look it up on YouTube.) John Kerry, in 2004, said he "would have voted for the war even knowing what he knows now" [paraphrase]. Clinton, while president, dropped bombs on Saddam and talked of his weapons of mass destruction. Clinton gave Haliburton 'no bid' contracts too, btw.
I am no big fan of G.W., mostly because of his stance on immigration and his big spending. He has been incompetent as far as executing the Iraq War and Katrina (even though I believe the Louisiana governor and New Orleans mayor are to blame mostly). I don't like what he tried to pull with Harriet Myers.
As far as 'evil corporations' go:
I am for repealing the income tax amendment. This would take money out of Washington and lessens corporate welfare and corruption by lobbyists. These entities are only there because Washington controls so much money and they want some of it. Make the government stay out of our lives and make them only protect and govern, and then you won't have to worry about 'evil corporations' and the rich controlling government and conspiring against us. They would not have a reason to.
As far as socialism goes (which the left seems to be veering towards when they talk about 'evil corporations' and taxing the rich):
Socialism is just a way for the rich to use government to keep the old European class system around. Socialism keeps most others from becoming wealthy by acting like the government will take care of everything for them. Socialism is about coercion, tyranny of the majority. Socialist countries still have rich people and poor people. In fact, they generally have more poor people than our country.
Our constitution was not written to grant government power. It was written to limit it and protect individual liberty. We have slowly moved away from that mindset. It is sad really.
History lesson for PopeRatzo:
1. George Washington marched troops into people's houses and demanded taxes on their stills. (Whiskey Rebellion)
2. George Washington talked of God and Faith in many of his speeches, just like the evil Religious Rightist G.W.
3. F.D.R. put Japanese into camps and opened people's mail during WWII. He preemptively attacked Germany, even though it was the Japanese who attacked us.
4. Kennedy got us into Vietnam, and preemptively attacked Cuba, then left people for dead and denied it.
5. The evil big telco and big oil provide jobs and products that people want. Congress, which has been controlled by Democrats 85% of the last century, made the rules that big telco and big oil follow.
6. Marxism and Leftism have produced more poor people and dictatorships than Capitalism ever has.
Yes, this is what the Democrat President, "the great society" Johnson did, after he had Kennedy assassinated of course.
You are a prime example of moral relativism at its finest.
Of course these people wanted Communism. Nobody disputes that. Communism was fast becoming the popular thing among poor countries. We were trying to prevent a domino effect. Marxism relies on the whole world being communist. If you really think that we were just a little better than Stalin, then you are a fool. Why do you think that Eastern Europe gave Bush such a warm reception just recently?
Actually, McCarthy was right in a lot of ways. Here's an example:
1. Political Correctness infiltrates all aspects of our lives. The Orwellian "control the lexicon, control the people" thing.
2. Cameras being put on every street corner (just look at Britain).
3. Leftism posing as Environmentalism (anti-Capitalism, pro-taxes, pro-UN control over US).
4. Judges treating the Constitution as a "living document" so that they can legislate from the bench (usurping Democracy).
5. Intentionally confusing "rights" as "privileges" and not teaching the difference. Is owning a firearm a right or a privilege?
6. Dumbing down our children in public schools, emphasizing diversity of skin color and sexual orientation, racial injustices, etc., above anything else.
7. Replacing our religious culture with secularism and the state. Attempt to keep politicians and public figures from promoting God or faith. Emphasizing "separation of church and state" and conveniently ignoring the disestablishment clause and misinterpreting the free exercise clause.
8. Attacking traditional family. Telling women that they don't need men, emphasizing alternate lifestyles, abortion on demand, etc.
9. Push for socialized health care.
10. Blame America first and attempt to weaken the US and strengthen the UN as being some "more just" institution.
11. Push for open borders.
12. Attacking Big Corporations and Capitalism, bashing the rich and playing class warfare.
I could go on and on.
1. George Washington was very religious, and there is a lot of proof that he was a Christian. He spoke of his faith in his inaugural address, asked for a King James Bible, and began the tradition of saying "so help me God." He spoke of the creator more times than George W. ever did. Although a few of the founding fathers were Deist, this was the exception and not the rule. In fact, those who were Deist can be divided into Christian Deists and non-Christian Deists. Saying that you are a Christian Deist is like saying you are non-denominational. You have to understand what was happening with the church at that time.
2. There is no separation between church and state like most people want you to think. Congress cannot DISESTABLISH religion as much as it cannot establish it. The disestablishment clause is often conveniently ignored. George Washington's speeches prove this, our historical government documents prove this, state constitutions that mention God prove this, our money (in God we trust) proves this, other official's speeches prove this, the prayer in congress proves this, the inaugural process proves this. In fact, the Supreme Court violated the first amendment by ruling that that Alabama Judge could not display the 10 commandments in his courtroom. The Supreme Court was actually making a legal ruling, whereas that Judge was not. The next Judge to succeeded him had every right to take it down and put up a Buddha statue (albeit he would probably get flack from citizens). The government IS the people. If the majority is Christian, then the government will look and sound Christian. This is evident in our nation's history. Congress just cannot make laws establishing or disestablishing religion.
1) He was in violation of 12 UN resolutions as well as his surrender agreement. We could not verify that he destroyed the weapons that we verified he had during the first gulf war. We had proof that he had many at that time, and could not verify that he got rid of all of them. We could not take the chance after 9/11.
...
..."it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government" ...
2) While I agree that it doesn't make it right, if other people did it to then why do you choose to have selective moral outrage? These people lied, the press lied, our intelligence lied, German intelligence lied, British intelligence lied. The UN was corrupt in oil for food dealings. France and Germany (our "allies") were making secret deals with Saddam behind our backs. Where's the outrage over this?
3) You have it backwards. The rich are who create the wealth in this country, and we owe them for giving us the opportunity to feed our families and buy big screen TVs. The average person doesn't apparently want to start new business, they'd rather work for someone else. The country is not a limited pie of wealth. Google didn't take wealth from some rich guy when they started their business. They created it, and they employed people and payed them a good salary. You are spewing Stalinist propaganda that only makes everyone broke in the end.
4) You mentioned Bush screwing up in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were allied in Afghanistan.
5) Proof: France and Germany were dealing with Saddam, and the UN had its own little oil for food racketeer going...
6) You call Bush a liar, then hand me a lie:
A Portion of George Washington's personal prayers:
"O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon."
[from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752]
In fact, in his first inaugural address:
What if Bush said something like that today in one of his speeches?
7) Apparently, you are not aware of the pork that was included in the "surrender bill" handed to Bush? How about Murtha's latest deal for his district?
You are the one being conned. Early mankind used spirituality to explain the laws of nature because they didn't know any different. Religion allowed societies to survive because it provided rules to live by that were built from experience and passed down from generation to generation (so that each generation would not repeat the same mistakes). Although people forgot why they had these rules to begin with, they followed them because they were part of their religious beliefs. Now that we have science, we throw out all those rules and call them religious dogma, not realizing that they served a greater purpose in society. Now we follow new rules made up by special interest groups, the media, the medical industry, sociologists and scientists. The rules are generally just pseudo-science dogma based on what is popular at the time. It will not be long before we suffer the consequences of our actions.
BTW: Even Atheists have a god, they just don't realize it. Everyone bows to the alter of something.
1. You mean "invading a sovereign nation that invaded a sovereign nation, and then signed a surrender agreement with us after we kicked them out of that sovereign nation." One of the agreements was to show the world that they had dismantled their weapons programs. Twelve UN resolutions were passed and ignored. Bill Clinton had even ordered an air attack on Iraq prior to leaving office. Most Democrats signed the war resolution. Hillary Clinton was recorded saying to Code Pink that "she had done 10 years of research and that invading Iraq was the right thing to do." John Kerry, during the 2004 election run, said that he would have voted for the war even knowing what he knows now.
2. Democrats signed on to the Patriot Act. The Echelon spy program was a Clinton program. FDR had people's mail read during WWII, put Japanese in camps, etc. Al Qaeda beheads its prisoners, yet you don't seem to mind that they do not apply the Geneva conventions to our soldiers. Nobody seems to care if our borders are secure.
3. Tax relief was the only reason why the excesses of Clinton's dot com and Enron boom did not kill our economy. The government has been gaining tax revenue as a result. The top 1% foot over 60% of the bill, how much do you feel they should be footing?
4. The Taliban were defeated in days without the need for foot soldiers. It was brilliant. Kudos to Bush.
5. You mean "alienating socialist so-called allies that want to weaken us using the UN and EU."
6. George Washington was more religious than George Bush. If anything, others pander to the godless left, not the other way around.
7. The democrats are spending like drunken sailors now. Are you happy?
Christians claim to have one, but it is flawed, contradictory and they don't follow it, therefore, they *are* hypocrites.
Humans, Atheists, Leftists, and Agnostics are flawed and contradictory. Feel free to not be any of those too.
Whenever one strives to be more perfect, they will eventually fail. Christians understand that they are imperfect and are sinners. They are told to be thy brother's keeper. Therefore, they will always be hypocrites, flawed, and imperfect. Unlike you, we understand this.
If I was spouting insane delusional contradictory nonsense, or claiming that magical invisible fairies were talking to me or any of the other then, indeed, I'd hope that sane decent people would try to help me.
Sitting down with someone and attempting to convey truth is different than hurling insults. If being insulted by someone is fine with you, then I suppose you are not a hypocrite. However, the golden rule should not really be read as "do unto others as you'd have done unto you personally," it should be read as "do unto others what a person in general would want done to unto them." This changes the statement from one of morally relativism to one that is morally absolute for a particular society.
So, basically, you have no point, you make no sense and you're just mad that I pointed out a couple of the deep seated hypocricies and contradictions inherent in a myth you were silly enough to think was true.
No, I just point out that all humans are flawed, and that wickedness exists in humans themselves as opposed to their belief systems. People do evil things in the name of religion, but they also do evil regardless of religion. Taking away a belief system, and telling people that morality is relative, only results in an excuse for more wickedness. In fact, civilization itself is a 'myth' that was invented so as to make us act less like animals. If moral code comes down to whatever laws are passed, then we are in big trouble.
1. When the "wicked" get punished according to one's own moral code, it is called justice.
2. When the "wicked" get punished according to another's moral code, one which goes against your own moral code, it is called injustice.
3. Atheists and agnostics have no absolute, written, unchanging, published moral code, so they can never be called hypocrites. They have no problem calling everyone else a hypocrite though. (They act as if they subscribe to the golden rule, but they really don't. Calling someone's deeply held religious beliefs a 'myth' goes against the golden rule, for instance.)
4. Moral relativism is fine with leftists and atheists as long as it does not go against them.
5. Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin: "If man is this wicked with religion, I'd be afraid to see what man would be like without it."