Oh, I'm sorry, you are one of those who actually do spread hatred and look down on people! My bad. Now why should I listen to your opinion about educated people?
Capitalism _is_ survival of the fittest, and thus closer to nature. We would not be here if it weren't for competition because evolution would not have happened. Truly educated people would realize that socialism and communism are evolutionary dead ends. They keep people either frozen at their current economic state or they decrease everyone's standard of living. People who have their backs to the wall will eventually throw out that system for a better system like Capitalism.
It is funny how the same person who calls people "rednecks" probably acts like they are "for the poor" and "against prejudice." They also would tell people not to judge or stereotype. Hypocrites...
How about a shower "pod" that cleans itself and a toilet that cleans itself. I don't mind sweeping and mopping, or even vacuuming, but I detest cleaning bathrooms!
1. The left has been losing elections and power.
2. Students are now starting to out their lefist professors and teachers.
3. America has been bamboozled by the likes of Walter Cronkite, "The most trusted man in America," who turns out to be a big liberal. Bamboozled by leftist professors in Universities, the last bastion of Communism (just look at what is happening at Harvard right now).
4. The main stream media and news is losing power to alternate forms of news and information (NPR is just one of these).
5. NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming in 2003.
6. NPR survives on forced public taxation. If it is so good and unbiased, then let it survive on its own!
In the old days, newspapers used to proclaim their bias. One would be the Republic, another the Democrat. I prefer this, and would read both to get both points of view on a story. At least everyone would be out in the open about their bias. There is no such thing as objective reporting, everyone has a bias.
NPR is a "subtle" political propaganda machine hiding behind the guise of a serious objective media organization. If one cannot convince people of a cause immediately, one resorts to positioning subtle propaganda purveyors in authorative positions at places that count such as educational institutions, media, courts, and various levels of government. Fortunately, America is finally awakening to the fact that they have been bamboozled, and will not put up with it much longer.
I'll play along!
1. It was once said that it is better to love and have lost than to have never loved.
2. Many people who divorce get married again, and many people never get divorced.
3. Many women still choose to have multiple children.
Actually, you bring up some good points. People should be pushing for anonymous forms of security / paying for things. There is no reason why companies should be farming our private information. Everyone seems to be moving towards retina scans and the like. Why not a cash replacement that works like cash, or an ID technology that still allows anonymotity? Think it can't be done? Think again.
People have let it happen because they are asleep to it all. They are too busy fighting to legalize pot and getting stoned. Currently, the federal government requires more of your money than God, who only requires 10%. Isn't that wrong? Even on your investments, the government takes 25-50%, inflation takes 4%, the mutual fund manager takes 1-2%. At 8-10% a year in the stock market, you will be lucky to make 1-2%. If you are in a savings account, you are actually losing money. Why is the government making more than you are on your money? Then everybody is blaming evil oil companies for the high price of oil and congress jumps on the bandwagon acting like they should raise gasoline taxes. Did you know that the government makes more on a gallon of gas through the current gas taxes than the gas station owner does? I have not heard one person even ask the question "why don't you drop the taxes on gasoline so that working families can pay less for gasoline?". Why?
Most think evil wears a black hat and can be seen from miles away too. Many will not be convinced that they already HAVE the mark when they do. In other words, if people are raped slow enough, they won't know they are being raped.
That logic is also flawed. By not having children, less people will get to experience the wonders of life or have the opportunity to help others down the road. That would also make YOU a son-of-a-bitch.:)
Using this same flawed logic, nobody should have children either! Somewhere down the line, one or more branches will suffer. Therefore YOU are the son-of-a-bitch!
The teacher could actually use the question of "why the big automakers don't do this" as a learning tool for the students rather than having them assume "it is because they are big greedy corporations." I am sure slashdotter's could come up with at least a hundred different reasons.
1. Offer tax incentives to free market schools to take on low income students. 2. Offer tax incentives to those who give to a "free market school grant charity." These charities then attach the money to the student rather than the free market school so that the schools must compete for the student. 3. For any shortfall in "free market school grant charity" money, the government can offer grants to make up the difference up to a certain amount. The student should feel a moral obligation to give to a "free market school grant charity" if they get a good paying job later in life.
It isn't impossible to do, you just have to think outside the socialist box.
The government should govern and make sure that everyone plays a fair game and is protected from each other and foreign entities. Providing for the general welfare does not imply that it should 'provide welfare'.
Schools for poor uneducated children can be setup by private/charitable organizations, and the government can provide tax incentives to companies that give donations to the schools. Since we will have much lower taxes when the government is smaller, we will have more money to give to charitable organizations. Let's face it, the government stinks at providing services. Competition is what brings prices down and increases the quality of service.
Leftists make such great capitalists! I haven't seen so many almost communist, bleeding-heart liberal rich people congregated in one place than in the bay area. They act like they are for the poor (you know the people they fly over on the way to New York and call trailer park) and they act like they are for civil liberties (unless you are an eye-sore in their neighborhood), but the truth is that they are just people who want to feel like they are above everyone else. It is not an accident that Lenin and Jerry Garcia were both from "well to do" families. It is no accident that leftist like their pets more than people and are often times vegetarian.
With companies like Google, who needs forced redistribution of wealth by the government?
Note to all those people working for Google in the bay area [Rant warning]:
If you are really for civil liberties, then get rid of the intrusive income tax. Quit allowing companies to farm our personal information. Push for 'anonymous' forms of security and payment. Make mass mail marketers subsidize our landfill (most of it goes straight to the trash), and telemarketers our phone bill (I seem to only get calls from them), and spammers our e-mail. Why am I paying for cable, when every channel has commercials? Why do I pay almost a quarter of my phone bill and cable bill to the government? Get rid of the evil eminent domain. Get rid of property taxes, which tell everyone that they are really leasing their land from the government.
It isn't evil corporations that are the problem, it is the government not doing its job that is the problem. The government has the power to pass laws to limit the power of corporations, etc. Capitalism is great when the rules by which we play are great.
Make congress only meet for a few months out of the year and base their pay on the national average, that way they aren't sitting around trying to find new ways to tax us. The problem with D.C. is that we send people there to live among snobs and pay them well so that they too turn into snobs.
Get rid of entitlements and make government small, unintrusive, and work for the people.
Some of us were wondering when Greenland would live up to its name and become green again... Does this mean that England will be known for its great wine again too?
* Today many Bible scholars assume that the"Red Sea" of the Old Testament should be translated "sea of reeds," and therefore must refer to a freshwater lake.
* The translation of "yam suph" into "sea of reeds" violates the context of Exodus 2:3, as well as other usages of the word "suph" in the Old Testament.
* "Yam suph" would be more correctly translated "sea of seaweed," and could refer to any body of water - freshwater or saltwater - in which aquatic weeds flourish.
* Numerous other biblical references indicate that "yam suph" is the Red Sea proper with its two gulfs, most frequently the Gulf of Aqaba in particular.
* Biblically speaking, "yam suph" can refer only to the Red Sea proper.
* The later terminology, "Red Sea," probably arose from the Gulf of Aqaba's association with "Edom," which in Hebrew means "Red."
First, I feel that we should all take care of our environment and that consumerism and technology isn't mutually exclusive to doing so. Keeping everyone poor, as socialism does, is much more harmful to the environment over the long run. Innovation happens at a much slower pace in socialist countries (how many french made computers do you own?).
Second, tree huggers have proven nothing. While there is evidence for the earth warming, there is little evidence that people are the cause of that warming. Greenland was green at one time, and England used to be known for its wine. As we all know, there was an ice age thousands of years ago and we've been "warming" ever since (with periods of cooling every now and then). Everyone acts as if the ice age was over long ago, but this just isn't the case. There are still remnants (glaciers and arctic ice). (Are these remnants starting to disappear faster? Of course. You put a very small piece of ice in a glass of relatively warm water and it will melt faster than a large chunk.)
I guess since we all know this ahead of time, the scientific data isn't really necessary!
We already have evidence that there have been several ice ages, and therefore several "global warmings." Much of this occurred before humans started using automobiles and building factories. You don't need rocket scientists or quack leftist professors to tell you this. If you want to scrub C02 from the atmosphere to prevent "global warming," then create devices that turn C02 into O2 and C and mass market them to consumers. (Oh, I forgot, global warming is really about how people feel about consumerism and capitalism rather than reality.)
The point system for slashdot is seriously dumb. How is your comment worth more points?
I am a conservative who is anti-federalist, pro-states rights, and pro-civil liberties (even when it comes to the second amendment), and there are many like me who voted for Bush. My guess is that you are a libertarian? If so, at least half of you is left-wing! The executive branch must follow the law that those in congress make. They will play politics about it (and so will people like you) because 2006 is a political year.
No different than how the left view the second amendment, or how they feel they can control society through judicial or jury activism (subversion of democracy through the court system). Their hero, FDR, had Japanese-Americans interned during WWII and also had domestic spies during that time of crisis. I am concerned about civil liberties too, which is why I think that we should get rid of the overwhelming one sided left-leaning voice in the mainstream news media, on college campuses, and in hollywood. After all, how is this really helpful to civil liberty? P.C. seems to be a left-wing creation. How is making people fearful of how they talk helpful to civil liberty? They turn everyone into little fascists, then complain about the government when their guy isn't in power.
As long as what I do does not harm anyone else, then that is okay. Don't judge others, man.
I do drugs, but never drive or go to work while high. I am always there for my children, even when I am broke and have to go on a quest to find a way to satisfy my craving.
Cussing? Me and my kids tell each other off all the time! I engage in polyamory, but what could be wrong with that? I mean, I've only accidently given two people STDs, and I did pay to get one of them an abortion. Besides, I get visitation rights to some of my children, and they ALL know who their mother's are.
Porn? Who cares, it's just people enjoying sex. I mean, the light stuff doesn't do much for me anymore. I am now into the harder core stuff. You know, the stuff that involves chains and rape. It's just fantasy though.
I'm an atheist and hate Christians too. Atheists can never be hypocrites because they don't subscribe to any one belief. Truth is relative you know? There is absolutely no such thing as absolute truth.
All that matters is pleasure and not hurting other people. That is why I like socialism, it is for everyone helping other people and enjoying pleasure and not hurting other people. If we just talk to the bad people, they will see our side and not hurt us.
I am not for the basic right of self rule. You know, "freedom of Assembly in the broadest sense". If a group of people who have "like values" want to raise their children in a society with those "like values," then that is just wrong. They should raise their children in the clean part of the sewage, and we should all expect them to grow up clean.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm sorry, you are one of those who actually do spread hatred and look down on people! My bad. Now why should I listen to your opinion about educated people?
Capitalism _is_ survival of the fittest, and thus closer to nature. We would not be here if it weren't for competition because evolution would not have happened. Truly educated people would realize that socialism and communism are evolutionary dead ends. They keep people either frozen at their current economic state or they decrease everyone's standard of living. People who have their backs to the wall will eventually throw out that system for a better system like Capitalism.
It is funny how the same person who calls people "rednecks" probably acts like they are "for the poor" and "against prejudice." They also would tell people not to judge or stereotype. Hypocrites...
How about a shower "pod" that cleans itself and a toilet that cleans itself. I don't mind sweeping and mopping, or even vacuuming, but I detest cleaning bathrooms!
1. The left has been losing elections and power. 2. Students are now starting to out their lefist professors and teachers. 3. America has been bamboozled by the likes of Walter Cronkite, "The most trusted man in America," who turns out to be a big liberal. Bamboozled by leftist professors in Universities, the last bastion of Communism (just look at what is happening at Harvard right now). 4. The main stream media and news is losing power to alternate forms of news and information (NPR is just one of these). 5. NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming in 2003. 6. NPR survives on forced public taxation. If it is so good and unbiased, then let it survive on its own! In the old days, newspapers used to proclaim their bias. One would be the Republic, another the Democrat. I prefer this, and would read both to get both points of view on a story. At least everyone would be out in the open about their bias. There is no such thing as objective reporting, everyone has a bias.
Sorry, I take myself way too seriously sometimes!
NPR is a "subtle" political propaganda machine hiding behind the guise of a serious objective media organization. If one cannot convince people of a cause immediately, one resorts to positioning subtle propaganda purveyors in authorative positions at places that count such as educational institutions, media, courts, and various levels of government. Fortunately, America is finally awakening to the fact that they have been bamboozled, and will not put up with it much longer.
Yes, everyone else is a moron but you.
I'll play along! 1. It was once said that it is better to love and have lost than to have never loved. 2. Many people who divorce get married again, and many people never get divorced. 3. Many women still choose to have multiple children.
Sorry, I am a product of our failing socialist public school system. (I even have a Master's degree!)
Actually, you bring up some good points. People should be pushing for anonymous forms of security / paying for things. There is no reason why companies should be farming our private information. Everyone seems to be moving towards retina scans and the like. Why not a cash replacement that works like cash, or an ID technology that still allows anonymotity? Think it can't be done? Think again. People have let it happen because they are asleep to it all. They are too busy fighting to legalize pot and getting stoned. Currently, the federal government requires more of your money than God, who only requires 10%. Isn't that wrong? Even on your investments, the government takes 25-50%, inflation takes 4%, the mutual fund manager takes 1-2%. At 8-10% a year in the stock market, you will be lucky to make 1-2%. If you are in a savings account, you are actually losing money. Why is the government making more than you are on your money? Then everybody is blaming evil oil companies for the high price of oil and congress jumps on the bandwagon acting like they should raise gasoline taxes. Did you know that the government makes more on a gallon of gas through the current gas taxes than the gas station owner does? I have not heard one person even ask the question "why don't you drop the taxes on gasoline so that working families can pay less for gasoline?". Why?
Most think evil wears a black hat and can be seen from miles away too. Many will not be convinced that they already HAVE the mark when they do. In other words, if people are raped slow enough, they won't know they are being raped.
That logic is also flawed. By not having children, less people will get to experience the wonders of life or have the opportunity to help others down the road. That would also make YOU a son-of-a-bitch. :)
Using this same flawed logic, nobody should have children either! Somewhere down the line, one or more branches will suffer. Therefore YOU are the son-of-a-bitch!
The teacher could actually use the question of "why the big automakers don't do this" as a learning tool for the students rather than having them assume "it is because they are big greedy corporations." I am sure slashdotter's could come up with at least a hundred different reasons.
One could tackle the problem threefold:
1. Offer tax incentives to free market schools to take on low income students.
2. Offer tax incentives to those who give to a "free market school grant charity." These charities then attach the money to the student rather than the free market school so that the schools must compete for the student.
3. For any shortfall in "free market school grant charity" money, the government can offer grants to make up the difference up to a certain amount. The student should feel a moral obligation to give to a "free market school grant charity" if they get a good paying job later in life.
It isn't impossible to do, you just have to think outside the socialist box.
The government should govern and make sure that everyone plays a fair game and is protected from each other and foreign entities. Providing for the general welfare does not imply that it should 'provide welfare'.
Schools for poor uneducated children can be setup by private/charitable organizations, and the government can provide tax incentives to companies that give donations to the schools. Since we will have much lower taxes when the government is smaller, we will have more money to give to charitable organizations. Let's face it, the government stinks at providing services. Competition is what brings prices down and increases the quality of service.
Leftists make such great capitalists! I haven't seen so many almost communist, bleeding-heart liberal rich people congregated in one place than in the bay area. They act like they are for the poor (you know the people they fly over on the way to New York and call trailer park) and they act like they are for civil liberties (unless you are an eye-sore in their neighborhood), but the truth is that they are just people who want to feel like they are above everyone else. It is not an accident that Lenin and Jerry Garcia were both from "well to do" families. It is no accident that leftist like their pets more than people and are often times vegetarian.
With companies like Google, who needs forced redistribution of wealth by the government?
Note to all those people working for Google in the bay area [Rant warning]:
If you are really for civil liberties, then get rid of the intrusive income tax. Quit allowing companies to farm our personal information. Push for 'anonymous' forms of security and payment. Make mass mail marketers subsidize our landfill (most of it goes straight to the trash), and telemarketers our phone bill (I seem to only get calls from them), and spammers our e-mail. Why am I paying for cable, when every channel has commercials? Why do I pay almost a quarter of my phone bill and cable bill to the government? Get rid of the evil eminent domain. Get rid of property taxes, which tell everyone that they are really leasing their land from the government.
It isn't evil corporations that are the problem, it is the government not doing its job that is the problem. The government has the power to pass laws to limit the power of corporations, etc. Capitalism is great when the rules by which we play are great.
Make congress only meet for a few months out of the year and base their pay on the national average, that way they aren't sitting around trying to find new ways to tax us. The problem with D.C. is that we send people there to live among snobs and pay them well so that they too turn into snobs.
Get rid of entitlements and make government small, unintrusive, and work for the people.
Some of us were wondering when Greenland would live up to its name and become green again...
Does this mean that England will be known for its great wine again too?
Just to clarify:
* Today many Bible scholars assume that the"Red Sea" of the Old Testament should be translated "sea of reeds," and therefore must refer to a freshwater lake.
* The translation of "yam suph" into "sea of reeds" violates the context of Exodus 2:3, as well as other usages of the word "suph" in the Old Testament.
* "Yam suph" would be more correctly translated "sea of seaweed," and could refer to any body of water - freshwater or saltwater - in which aquatic weeds flourish.
* Numerous other biblical references indicate that "yam suph" is the Red Sea proper with its two gulfs, most frequently the Gulf of Aqaba in particular.
* Biblically speaking, "yam suph" can refer only to the Red Sea proper.
* The later terminology, "Red Sea," probably arose from the Gulf of Aqaba's association with "Edom," which in Hebrew means "Red."
From: http://www.baseinstitute.org/yamsuph.html
First, I feel that we should all take care of our environment and that consumerism and technology isn't mutually exclusive to doing so. Keeping everyone poor, as socialism does, is much more harmful to the environment over the long run. Innovation happens at a much slower pace in socialist countries (how many french made computers do you own?).
Second, tree huggers have proven nothing. While there is evidence for the earth warming, there is little evidence that people are the cause of that warming. Greenland was green at one time, and England used to be known for its wine. As we all know, there was an ice age thousands of years ago and we've been "warming" ever since (with periods of cooling every now and then). Everyone acts as if the ice age was over long ago, but this just isn't the case. There are still remnants (glaciers and arctic ice). (Are these remnants starting to disappear faster? Of course. You put a very small piece of ice in a glass of relatively warm water and it will melt faster than a large chunk.)
"Climate change evidence will continue to mount."
I guess since we all know this ahead of time, the scientific data isn't really necessary!
We already have evidence that there have been several ice ages, and therefore several "global warmings." Much of this occurred before humans started using automobiles and building factories. You don't need rocket scientists or quack leftist professors to tell you this. If you want to scrub C02 from the atmosphere to prevent "global warming," then create devices that turn C02 into O2 and C and mass market them to consumers. (Oh, I forgot, global warming is really about how people feel about consumerism and capitalism rather than reality.)
The point system for slashdot is seriously dumb. How is your comment worth more points?
I am a conservative who is anti-federalist, pro-states rights, and pro-civil liberties (even when it comes to the second amendment), and there are many like me who voted for Bush. My guess is that you are a libertarian? If so, at least half of you is left-wing! The executive branch must follow the law that those in congress make. They will play politics about it (and so will people like you) because 2006 is a political year.
No different than how the left view the second amendment, or how they feel they can control society through judicial or jury activism (subversion of democracy through the court system). Their hero, FDR, had Japanese-Americans interned during WWII and also had domestic spies during that time of crisis. I am concerned about civil liberties too, which is why I think that we should get rid of the overwhelming one sided left-leaning voice in the mainstream news media, on college campuses, and in hollywood. After all, how is this really helpful to civil liberty? P.C. seems to be a left-wing creation. How is making people fearful of how they talk helpful to civil liberty? They turn everyone into little fascists, then complain about the government when their guy isn't in power.
Anyone notice how the anti-Christian views get higher slashdot scores?
As long as what I do does not harm anyone else, then that is okay. Don't judge others, man.
I do drugs, but never drive or go to work while high. I am always there for my children, even when I am broke and have to go on a quest to find a way to satisfy my craving.
Cussing? Me and my kids tell each other off all the time! I engage in polyamory, but what could be wrong with that? I mean, I've only accidently given two people STDs, and I did pay to get one of them an abortion. Besides, I get visitation rights to some of my children, and they ALL know who their mother's are.
Porn? Who cares, it's just people enjoying sex. I mean, the light stuff doesn't do much for me anymore. I am now into the harder core stuff. You know, the stuff that involves chains and rape. It's just fantasy though.
I'm an atheist and hate Christians too. Atheists can never be hypocrites because they don't subscribe to any one belief. Truth is relative you know? There is absolutely no such thing as absolute truth.
All that matters is pleasure and not hurting other people. That is why I like socialism, it is for everyone helping other people and enjoying pleasure and not hurting other people. If we just talk to the bad people, they will see our side and not hurt us.
I am not for the basic right of self rule. You know, "freedom of Assembly in the broadest sense". If a group of people who have "like values" want to raise their children in a society with those "like values," then that is just wrong. They should raise their children in the clean part of the sewage, and we should all expect them to grow up clean.