Really? most liberals that I've met cannot stand it when you question their beliefs. I've only known conservatives who are open to hearing what anyone has to say, doesn't mean the agree with you, but they will listen.
The argument leads to extremes, I'll say we can live in the oceans, you'll say and when thats used up? I'll say well we can eventually colonize other planets, then you say and when thats used up? so on and so on. If we live long enough as a civilization and as a species we would get to a point the universe isn't enough. I'm sure by that time some genius will have thought of way to get to other universes, but I doubt we will ever get to that point.
He would have no market if no one was alive either. Yes there are some fundamental physical needs, but they are miniscule comparatively speaking, but as technology changes so does our need for resources. We can go on, to the limits of the universe and how there's a certain amount of energy per bit needed, but those are extremes, we have along way to go to reach any meaningful limitation.
Conservatives that I know aren't against anything but drilling, they are against being pushed into a technology that isn't ready, yet. I'm sure someone will come up with plenty of solutions, heck, what IMHO is needed is to have more CNG vehicles, they are cleaner, fuel is less costly and high octane means your car engine will last much longer.
You said those who do not "deserve" it, I said earned it, totally different. Anyone who earned it deserves it. Why should someone who hasn't earned it, be deserving of it?
Are you daft? Let connect the dots. You see the physical device that you just used to post this moronic statement? That was built from natural resources. Oh, and the electricity which is used to run that piece of hardware? Generated by utilizing(and likely burning) natural resources. So, no, Bill Gates' wealth is entirely dependent on natural resources.
True, his wealth is connected to having a computer just as Google is, by the same analogy then his wealth is also dependent on having eyes and ears and hands, since it really takes those to run that piece of hardware.
Going back, his wealth is dependent on software, yes there are some physical aspects, there are atoms that have be moved, but nothing physical is made.
There was approximately $1.1 trillion in circulation as of March 14, 2012, of which $1.06 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
The first mistake, the amount of wealth has nothing to do with the amount money, I can be sitting on 100 acres of land, each acre is approximately $50k in value, or $5Million, does that mean there's an equivalent amount of money some where? No there isn't, it doesn't become money to an individual until it's sold from to someone.
Meanwhile conservatives also believe there is finite wealth but feel those who do not "deserve" it should not have access to it. (ie there should never be enough wealth for everyone).
Not true at all, conservatives believe that a person who has earned their wealth should keep it, those who haven't earned it should not.
"While you can always print more money, if you aren't increasing the amount of "stuff" alongside it, you're just going to make each individual unit of money worth less."
Almost true, the stuff is defined by borrowing and lending of monetary values, not physical stuff, since most currency today is not backed by physical assets, ie. Gold.
I'm not talking about money, that's why I use the term wealth. Wealth is also relative, the poorest person in the U.S would be considered rich in Haiti, visiting there I noticed most have cell phones and several have laptops and iPads. As an immigrant, I know that I've seen an increase in personal wealth living in the U.S, more so than I ever had in my country. I know that creativity unleashed is why wealth keeps growing, Bill Gates makes nothing physically, nor does Google, yet they are wealthy.
But this spending last year has me PISSED. I do not like it. Like W/neo-cons, this spending allows China to sell us goods and then buy our debt, rather than our goods. We are fools to allow this. Instead, we need to get the Federal Deficit below 250B to force China to buy our goods. Otherwise, they will have much more than the 25-50% inflation that they have currently (and much of that was caused by Bernake).
To put it more directly, conservatives see science as both theoretically and empirically telling them that unbridled capitalism, and all that it brings (the pollution, the stripping of resources and all the other impacts on both environment and climate) are not sustainable. That eventually, it has to end.
You see here is where you make your biggest mistake, It's not about unbridled capitalism create pollution, stripping of resources , heck most governments do that, Its that liberals believe there's finite amount of wealth to be had, and that's just not true.
Your very correct, there has been an increase in bias and false information over the years that conservatives have a very hard time trusting the scientists, not science.
Liberal and conservative are arbitrary viewpoints on a multitude of subjects that change constantly. Reality doesn't give a damn what you, I, or anyone else thinks.
Not sure who your talking about or what your trying to say, I know that isn't the sub-net I'm coming from. First two octets are 99.170.xxx.xxx to help you out.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? most liberals that I've met cannot stand it when you question their beliefs. I've only known conservatives who are open to hearing what anyone has to say, doesn't mean the agree with you, but they will listen.
So, I suppose that conservatives would aim to abolish inheritance, because surely the heir doesn't (usually) do anything to earn wealth.
That depends on the person leaving the wealth, I may or may not leave my wealth to my son and daughter, the choice is mine in that fact.
The argument leads to extremes, I'll say we can live in the oceans, you'll say and when thats used up? I'll say well we can eventually colonize other planets, then you say and when thats used up? so on and so on. If we live long enough as a civilization and as a species we would get to a point the universe isn't enough. I'm sure by that time some genius will have thought of way to get to other universes, but I doubt we will ever get to that point.
He would have no market if no one was alive either. Yes there are some fundamental physical needs, but they are miniscule comparatively speaking, but as technology changes so does our need for resources. We can go on, to the limits of the universe and how there's a certain amount of energy per bit needed, but those are extremes, we have along way to go to reach any meaningful limitation.
Conservatives that I know aren't against anything but drilling, they are against being pushed into a technology that isn't ready, yet. I'm sure someone will come up with plenty of solutions, heck, what IMHO is needed is to have more CNG vehicles, they are cleaner, fuel is less costly and high octane means your car engine will last much longer.
You said those who do not "deserve" it, I said earned it, totally different. Anyone who earned it deserves it. Why should someone who hasn't earned it, be deserving of it?
Are you daft? Let connect the dots. You see the physical device that you just used to post this moronic statement? That was built from natural resources. Oh, and the electricity which is used to run that piece of hardware? Generated by utilizing(and likely burning) natural resources. So, no, Bill Gates' wealth is entirely dependent on natural resources.
True, his wealth is connected to having a computer just as Google is, by the same analogy then his wealth is also dependent on having eyes and ears and hands, since it really takes those to run that piece of hardware. Going back, his wealth is dependent on software, yes there are some physical aspects, there are atoms that have be moved, but nothing physical is made.
There was approximately $1.1 trillion in circulation as of March 14, 2012, of which $1.06 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
The first mistake, the amount of wealth has nothing to do with the amount money, I can be sitting on 100 acres of land, each acre is approximately $50k in value, or $5Million, does that mean there's an equivalent amount of money some where? No there isn't, it doesn't become money to an individual until it's sold from to someone.
Meanwhile conservatives also believe there is finite wealth but feel those who do not "deserve" it should not have access to it. (ie there should never be enough wealth for everyone).
Not true at all, conservatives believe that a person who has earned their wealth should keep it, those who haven't earned it should not.
"While you can always print more money, if you aren't increasing the amount of "stuff" alongside it, you're just going to make each individual unit of money worth less." Almost true, the stuff is defined by borrowing and lending of monetary values, not physical stuff, since most currency today is not backed by physical assets, ie. Gold.
I'm not talking about money, that's why I use the term wealth. Wealth is also relative, the poorest person in the U.S would be considered rich in Haiti, visiting there I noticed most have cell phones and several have laptops and iPads. As an immigrant, I know that I've seen an increase in personal wealth living in the U.S, more so than I ever had in my country. I know that creativity unleashed is why wealth keeps growing, Bill Gates makes nothing physically, nor does Google, yet they are wealthy.
I was? I thought it was intelligent conversation for a change.
You can be the richest man in the world but if theres no oil to fuel your car or food to put in your stomach then that money means jack shit.
Except that some ingenious fellow creates an alternative fuel that is cost effective and makes a fortune.
My mistake I wasn't implying 0% I should have said less than what we have now.
But this spending last year has me PISSED. I do not like it. Like W/neo-cons, this spending allows China to sell us goods and then buy our debt, rather than our goods. We are fools to allow this. Instead, we need to get the Federal Deficit below 250B to force China to buy our goods. Otherwise, they will have much more than the 25-50% inflation that they have currently (and much of that was caused by Bernake).
I'll at least agree with you on that one.
But but none of that money went to "un-fuck" the economy.
Unless everyone is ready to validate every study ever done, you have to trust/believe the person who made the study, see the problem?
To put it more directly, conservatives see science as both theoretically and empirically telling them that unbridled capitalism, and all that it brings (the pollution, the stripping of resources and all the other impacts on both environment and climate) are not sustainable. That eventually, it has to end.
You see here is where you make your biggest mistake, It's not about unbridled capitalism create pollution, stripping of resources , heck most governments do that, Its that liberals believe there's finite amount of wealth to be had, and that's just not true.
Yet Obama has spent more in his first 4 years than Bush did in eight.
Your very correct, there has been an increase in bias and false information over the years that conservatives have a very hard time trusting the scientists, not science.
Liberal and conservative are arbitrary viewpoints on a multitude of subjects that change constantly. Reality doesn't give a damn what you, I, or anyone else thinks.
Voice of reason.
Actually no, the social conservatives have also lost faith in the GOP, more are independents today.
So the guys who want freedom from Government should join with the guys who want more Government, makes sense? I think not.
Russia is extending the lifetime of nuclear power reactors beyond their engineered life span of 30 years
What could possibly go wrong ?
Not sure who your talking about or what your trying to say, I know that isn't the sub-net I'm coming from. First two octets are 99.170.xxx.xxx to help you out.