"Short term, the only way you are going to effect meaningful change to US elections is with a bunch of people with guns."
I couldn't agree more. The sooner those eager to use guns against the government of the United States find themselves either dead or in jail, the sooner many of the US's problems will be solved.
"What does it say about society that if you advocate legalizing almost everything you'll be labelled a conservative?"
and oddly conservatives are among those most adamantly opposed to legalizing abortion, gay rights and higher taxes on the wealthy. What does that say about "conservatives"?
California now has a system where the top two vote geters in the primary face off in the general, irrespective of party affiliation. It will be interesting to see if this alternative form of electioneering will substantially alter the process. Personally, I doubt it as ultimately humans will vote and with so many so poorly educated as to the complexities of the issues, the vast majority of the votes will be cast in a way that make the entire system increasingly dysfunctional. However, it might have one side benefit in making the entire cost of the election industry a smaller share of overall GDP, thereby making the entire process more efficient. Few realize just how much of GDP we as a nation actually put to electing our leaders. Its much higher than in other societies, and as a consequence we continue to loose economic and technological ground to them as they have relatively more of their total resources left over to put to ultimately useful, non-political activity.
There really isn't anything stopping you from voting for a third, fourth or fifth party other than the fear of the consequences. Why is it those who champion individual freedom are such whiners?
You seem to be under the delusion that corporate management doesn't set the cost of goods and services in the economy. Unions merely exist to insure that workers collectively organized get to more profitably share in the take that corporate management sets as the bottom line. This is the reason there is so much hostility to unions, it cuts into the take by corporate management of what the market will bear.
Yes, but the individual worker has almost no negotiating leverage. So just accept minimum wage or next to it and stop complaining. You are getting what you want, less pay. Why are you complaining?
Fine. Then just don't apply for a job at a union shop. There are many jobs in non-union shops to choose from. Just stop complaining that the pay and benefits are less than in union shops and everyone will be happy, especially your boss, who will likely put the difference in pay into his pocket.
You can always quit and join another union or seek an alternative employer. You seem determined to argue that each individual should get to set the rules whenever they want, without regard to the wishes of the majority. No one is forcing anyone to join a union. People join because unions advocate for better pay and benefits on behalf of workers. One can always join a non-union shop elsewhere if you are philosophically opposed to the idea of having social counterweights to executive corporate ownership and total power over workers.
No one says you have to work at a specific place. If you don't like the rules, you can always quit, no? Isn't that the ultimate form of accepting personal responsibility for one's actions? Why should particularly individuals get to defy the will of the majority and get their way just because they want to?
It takes a majority vote, which for many means that to hell with the concept of representative democracy as they are going to do things their way anyway, as long as they have the resources to do so.
What are you trying to do? If people begin to recognize the truth of your remarks it will make republican talking points useless. At least republicans can feel secure that so many of their base are trapped in stereotypes of their own making that no appeals to logic or fact will cause them to reflect on the reality of the situation.
One can tell the republican ideologues are out in force when they are busy tagging unions as standing in the way of eliminating websites like youtube.org that threaten the monopolies of the giant entertainment and "news" networks.
It is remarkable how poorly educated most even, the presumably technologically literate, are with respect to how republican corporate lobbying efforts will actually effect them personally. Its just reinforces the old adage that you can fool some of the people all the time. Appeals to stereotypes seems to work on some every time.
This is merely a reflection of the fact that many are fearful that their own abilities don't match their rhetoric or their self-conceived view of themselves. Posting anonymously only slightly retards the speed at which the reckoning comes. In reality little of even the greatest minds amounts to little that matters in time. Humans are rather limited in their intellectual capabilities, which are all relative to circumstance. It is difficult to confront the reality that one's life really doesn't mean all that much regardless of the intensity of the self-adoration and self-righteousness.
Nonetheless, given all of humanities problems we must hope that everyone might have a few shining moments just to keep the potential of civilization alive and stave off the near certainty of human extinction, which will probably come far sooner than most realize.
The only way one can chalk these up as "wins" is if one accepts sophism and paramount to being accurate. The problem is that most people can't tell the difference between science and sophism, which certainly gives the sophist the leg up.
Keep in mind that in Kentucky Christianity has become the state sponsored religion, which is rigorously enforced. This may explain Rabel's behavior. He's running scared of the inquisition.
Its bad for business, which when you come down to it is the bottom line. How many gods can dance on the head of a pin is merely part of the side show attraction.
How many priests, bishops, cardinals and popes are now suffering eternal damnation as a result of pedophilia and hypocrisy? Or have has the Catholic church simply and conveniently lost track?
Looks as if this will have to be a mandatory requirement in all such debates. Since creationists really can't make their screed accepted without interjecting it into the mainstream with "debating" enough to become relevant, this requirement may well put an end to their entire effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the Greens could take over the democratic party like the Tea Party has done with the republican party and you get an entirely different outcome.
"Short term, the only way you are going to effect meaningful change to US elections is with a bunch of people with guns."
I couldn't agree more. The sooner those eager to use guns against the government of the United States find themselves either dead or in jail, the sooner many of the US's problems will be solved.
"What does it say about society that if you advocate legalizing almost everything you'll be labelled a conservative?"
and oddly conservatives are among those most adamantly opposed to legalizing abortion, gay rights and higher taxes on the wealthy. What does that say about "conservatives"?
California now has a system where the top two vote geters in the primary face off in the general, irrespective of party affiliation. It will be interesting to see if this alternative form of electioneering will substantially alter the process. Personally, I doubt it as ultimately humans will vote and with so many so poorly educated as to the complexities of the issues, the vast majority of the votes will be cast in a way that make the entire system increasingly dysfunctional. However, it might have one side benefit in making the entire cost of the election industry a smaller share of overall GDP, thereby making the entire process more efficient. Few realize just how much of GDP we as a nation actually put to electing our leaders. Its much higher than in other societies, and as a consequence we continue to loose economic and technological ground to them as they have relatively more of their total resources left over to put to ultimately useful, non-political activity.
There really isn't anything stopping you from voting for a third, fourth or fifth party other than the fear of the consequences. Why is it those who champion individual freedom are such whiners?
You seem to be under the delusion that corporate management doesn't set the cost of goods and services in the economy. Unions merely exist to insure that workers collectively organized get to more profitably share in the take that corporate management sets as the bottom line. This is the reason there is so much hostility to unions, it cuts into the take by corporate management of what the market will bear.
Yes, but the individual worker has almost no negotiating leverage. So just accept minimum wage or next to it and stop complaining. You are getting what you want, less pay. Why are you complaining?
Fine. Then just don't apply for a job at a union shop. There are many jobs in non-union shops to choose from. Just stop complaining that the pay and benefits are less than in union shops and everyone will be happy, especially your boss, who will likely put the difference in pay into his pocket.
You can always quit and join another union or seek an alternative employer. You seem determined to argue that each individual should get to set the rules whenever they want, without regard to the wishes of the majority. No one is forcing anyone to join a union. People join because unions advocate for better pay and benefits on behalf of workers. One can always join a non-union shop elsewhere if you are philosophically opposed to the idea of having social counterweights to executive corporate ownership and total power over workers.
No one says you have to work at a specific place. If you don't like the rules, you can always quit, no? Isn't that the ultimate form of accepting personal responsibility for one's actions? Why should particularly individuals get to defy the will of the majority and get their way just because they want to?
It takes a majority vote, which for many means that to hell with the concept of representative democracy as they are going to do things their way anyway, as long as they have the resources to do so.
What personal experience would that be? Do be specific please.
What are you trying to do? If people begin to recognize the truth of your remarks it will make republican talking points useless. At least republicans can feel secure that so many of their base are trapped in stereotypes of their own making that no appeals to logic or fact will cause them to reflect on the reality of the situation.
Why is it that so many regard forces that act as a counterbalance to total corporate control in our society so threatening?
Since when do events in 2005 indicate what people's attitudes were in 1955?
Evidently, for some, logic is never enough when it forces them to give up their most cherished misperceptions.
One can tell the republican ideologues are out in force when they are busy tagging unions as standing in the way of eliminating websites like youtube.org that threaten the monopolies of the giant entertainment and "news" networks.
It is remarkable how poorly educated most even, the presumably technologically literate, are with respect to how republican corporate lobbying efforts will actually effect them personally. Its just reinforces the old adage that you can fool some of the people all the time. Appeals to stereotypes seems to work on some every time.
"Yes. AC abuse has skyrocketed,"
This is merely a reflection of the fact that many are fearful that their own abilities don't match their rhetoric or their self-conceived view of themselves. Posting anonymously only slightly retards the speed at which the reckoning comes. In reality little of even the greatest minds amounts to little that matters in time. Humans are rather limited in their intellectual capabilities, which are all relative to circumstance. It is difficult to confront the reality that one's life really doesn't mean all that much regardless of the intensity of the self-adoration and self-righteousness.
Nonetheless, given all of humanities problems we must hope that everyone might have a few shining moments just to keep the potential of civilization alive and stave off the near certainty of human extinction, which will probably come far sooner than most realize.
The only way one can chalk these up as "wins" is if one accepts sophism and paramount to being accurate. The problem is that most people can't tell the difference between science and sophism, which certainly gives the sophist the leg up.
Keep in mind that in Kentucky Christianity has become the state sponsored religion, which is rigorously enforced. This may explain Rabel's behavior. He's running scared of the inquisition.
" If the bible is not the word of god, then how does one begin to choose which parts are true and which are not?"
Just shut down all neuronal transmission in your frontal lobe and everything becomes clear.
" and doubt is not something believers want"
Its bad for business, which when you come down to it is the bottom line. How many gods can dance on the head of a pin is merely part of the side show attraction.
How many priests, bishops, cardinals and popes are now suffering eternal damnation as a result of pedophilia and hypocrisy? Or have has the Catholic church simply and conveniently lost track?
Looks as if this will have to be a mandatory requirement in all such debates. Since creationists really can't make their screed accepted without interjecting it into the mainstream with "debating" enough to become relevant, this requirement may well put an end to their entire effort.
In America sophism gets you everything, logic and reason not so much.
If anyone in the US is going to build a sentient computer, they are going to have to keep the republicans away from it.