Nope. Same means, same outcome. Only the words are different.
Workers don't own the means of production under communism. Not by any definition of the word "own" that has any meaning. The government does. And the party/favored corporations control the government. End of story. Marco's Spain was no different from communist anywhere.
You are assuming we have a right wing in this country. We don't. We have two authoritarian parties, both with fascist tendencies, with varying degrees of support for socialist and communist policies (READ the Communist Manifesto and compare to American policy).
"Right Wing" would be more like the policies we had in the 50's and 60's, hopefully absent the war spending. Those were bad times for personal freedoms, but relatively good, even great times economically. That includes a government reduced in size to what it was at that time, not the 40+% of GDP monstrosity we have today. Our government is twice as big as Communist China's, FFS. And that is on a GDP adjusted scale!
How do you plan to pay for that? The industrial base in the US has already been cut in half from over regulation. Now you want to kill all the small businesses by taking their capital away?
You do realize that Europe is crumbling RIGHT NOW because of those policies, right? Only Scandinavia seems immune, and that only because of vast natural resource deposits. Once those are depleted, the free ride will end, and they will go the way of Greece and Spain.
If they don't allow economic freedom, then they are not right wing, they are simply authoritarian, which IS the case with the Republican party. Also the case with the Democratic party. If they allowed personal freedoms, they would be left wing, but drugs remain illegal at the federal level, and a Democratic president continues to allow the enforcement of such laws. Numerous other personal freedoms remain under assault.
So my point stands. We only disagree on definitions. You envision a square where you can have left and right wing very far from each other despite having the same level f authoritarianism, where I envision a diamond, where the views they espouse to the public have no impact, and you only look at their actions, where there is no real discernible difference between left and right when they become more authoritarian. This is illustrated by the fact that Obama has perpetuated pretty much every Bush policy, on both social and economic issues. Guantanamo remains open. We continue to print money and give it to the banks. Same actions, different words.
Unless you are claiming that better observational techniques will allow us to image a creator god floating around in the cosmos somewhere, then I don't get what you are saying. The second we developed technology capable of detecting exoplanets, we started finding them. We could only detect the ones we could detect. Now we can also detect the ones we can detect. In the future, we will be able to detect the ones we can detect, too. I don't really see what the controversy is.
Please, provide a proof of that assertion. Or were you using the word "logic" in the hackneyed manner it is used in Star Trek?
The likelihood of producing a universe that gives birth to life exactly ONE time, is, in fact, infinitesimal. By definition, actually. Either there is lots of life all over the place, or there is none. Saying exactly one is like saying there are exactly five. Or exactly 563.
I recently read a work of fiction that made a good case (accidentally--they were talking about humans alone) for the Fermi Paradox. Basically, every civilization that becomes spacefaring first becomes so extraordinarily efficient that they don't put out radio waves, and that they have "ascended" into a computer simulated universe where they live as immortals, where the processing speed of the computer is fast enough that a thousand years might pass on the inside in a second of real time. Resources and expansion are handled by a self-improving AI. Said AI consumes entire star systems while providing for its passengers.
Its interesting, because it would explain why no individual aliens pop up here or there, despite the fact that they have the tech to get here easily, and there are resources here that individuals would want to exploit. The AI is so advanced that it doesn't require any preprocessing of materials, perhaps even driving increased fusion rates in dying stars to produce the minerals it needs, something that would greatly reduce the need for expansion in any event.
In essence, there are no spacefaring alien civilizations on this plane of existence. Just alien AIs, which present as one god-like being for each civilization. They might even merge or otherwise cooperate in order to avoid destructive confrontation, which would waste resources. Perhaps such AIs agree to leave developing civilizations alone, and only contact them once they have developed that type of AI.
Here's hoping that is the case, as otherwise, they are rare, and may not give a shit about us, and will roll over our civilization like a steamroller over a garden slug. If we are lucky, the expansion front of such an entity would at least let us "in" prior to consuming our star system.
Of course. Everything is illegal. The cops and the DA get to choose when to enforce the law, and when not to. That is why you are fucked if they ever decide to gun for you, no matter how upstanding a citizen you are.
Those guys had a permit. Apparently, a piece of paper from the government is all you need to be in the "right" regardless of how many you hurt or kill.
Welcome to the world of fascism, kids. In a free society, there would be no regulators giving these guys a free pass. If a company endangered the public like this, they would be sued for everything the company had, then they would go after the shareholders. Those who made the decisions that lead to those deaths would be prosecuted for manslaughter. Such a rigorous level of accountability means people wouldn't just do what the government required of them--they would do what it took to defend themselves IE ensure public safety.
People seem to think that free markets mean "anything goes", when the opposite is true. Free market regulations are more effective than government regulations, because the latter allows cop outs. Basically a letter from mommy excusing them for killing people and destroying property.
I don't think you are at all familiar with modern black culture. Bill Cosby has the same complaints as the GP. Is he a white supremecist? Does making valid criticisms of self destructive cultural norms mean that you HATE and want to ELIMINATE the people who carry that culture? Do liberals then want to lynch gun owners? Does Michael Bloomburg want to drag fat people behind his truck down 5th avenue? Do atheists want separate water fountains for religious people?
This is what happens to EVERY GROUP that has things given to it for free. Search any population by % of people on welfare, and you will find increasingly self destructive culture. It's just human nature. If you don't earn something, you don't respect it. If you get something for free, you want more for the same price.
The tenets of Marxism are EXACTLY what the DNC (AND RNC) support. If they didn't, the US wouldn't have implemented so many planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Words don't have meaning to politicians. They twist them to mean anything they want. But their ACTIONS are the SAME.
The right-left spectrum is a bit one dimensional, don't you think?
Fact is that both parties in the US are FASCIST, not right wing. There is a very large difference, as at least the right wing allows significant economic freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
You're retarded. There is no point in talking with you.
Nope. Same means, same outcome. Only the words are different.
Workers don't own the means of production under communism. Not by any definition of the word "own" that has any meaning. The government does. And the party/favored corporations control the government. End of story. Marco's Spain was no different from communist anywhere.
You are assuming we have a right wing in this country. We don't. We have two authoritarian parties, both with fascist tendencies, with varying degrees of support for socialist and communist policies (READ the Communist Manifesto and compare to American policy).
"Right Wing" would be more like the policies we had in the 50's and 60's, hopefully absent the war spending. Those were bad times for personal freedoms, but relatively good, even great times economically. That includes a government reduced in size to what it was at that time, not the 40+% of GDP monstrosity we have today. Our government is twice as big as Communist China's, FFS. And that is on a GDP adjusted scale!
How do you plan to pay for that? The industrial base in the US has already been cut in half from over regulation. Now you want to kill all the small businesses by taking their capital away?
You do realize that Europe is crumbling RIGHT NOW because of those policies, right? Only Scandinavia seems immune, and that only because of vast natural resource deposits. Once those are depleted, the free ride will end, and they will go the way of Greece and Spain.
lol, and which team would that be?
I'm a libertarian, you nincompoop.
This is the way I view the political spectrum.
If they don't allow economic freedom, then they are not right wing, they are simply authoritarian, which IS the case with the Republican party. Also the case with the Democratic party. If they allowed personal freedoms, they would be left wing, but drugs remain illegal at the federal level, and a Democratic president continues to allow the enforcement of such laws. Numerous other personal freedoms remain under assault.
So my point stands. We only disagree on definitions. You envision a square where you can have left and right wing very far from each other despite having the same level f authoritarianism, where I envision a diamond, where the views they espouse to the public have no impact, and you only look at their actions, where there is no real discernible difference between left and right when they become more authoritarian. This is illustrated by the fact that Obama has perpetuated pretty much every Bush policy, on both social and economic issues. Guantanamo remains open. We continue to print money and give it to the banks. Same actions, different words.
And we all know that life can't evolve on a planet the size of earth. That's unpossible!
What?
Unless you are claiming that better observational techniques will allow us to image a creator god floating around in the cosmos somewhere, then I don't get what you are saying. The second we developed technology capable of detecting exoplanets, we started finding them. We could only detect the ones we could detect. Now we can also detect the ones we can detect. In the future, we will be able to detect the ones we can detect, too. I don't really see what the controversy is.
Please, provide a proof of that assertion. Or were you using the word "logic" in the hackneyed manner it is used in Star Trek?
The likelihood of producing a universe that gives birth to life exactly ONE time, is, in fact, infinitesimal. By definition, actually. Either there is lots of life all over the place, or there is none. Saying exactly one is like saying there are exactly five. Or exactly 563.
I recently read a work of fiction that made a good case (accidentally--they were talking about humans alone) for the Fermi Paradox. Basically, every civilization that becomes spacefaring first becomes so extraordinarily efficient that they don't put out radio waves, and that they have "ascended" into a computer simulated universe where they live as immortals, where the processing speed of the computer is fast enough that a thousand years might pass on the inside in a second of real time. Resources and expansion are handled by a self-improving AI. Said AI consumes entire star systems while providing for its passengers.
Its interesting, because it would explain why no individual aliens pop up here or there, despite the fact that they have the tech to get here easily, and there are resources here that individuals would want to exploit. The AI is so advanced that it doesn't require any preprocessing of materials, perhaps even driving increased fusion rates in dying stars to produce the minerals it needs, something that would greatly reduce the need for expansion in any event.
In essence, there are no spacefaring alien civilizations on this plane of existence. Just alien AIs, which present as one god-like being for each civilization. They might even merge or otherwise cooperate in order to avoid destructive confrontation, which would waste resources. Perhaps such AIs agree to leave developing civilizations alone, and only contact them once they have developed that type of AI.
Here's hoping that is the case, as otherwise, they are rare, and may not give a shit about us, and will roll over our civilization like a steamroller over a garden slug. If we are lucky, the expansion front of such an entity would at least let us "in" prior to consuming our star system.
Yes, the "humans are special" train of thought has never led us astray before.
Now if you will excuse me, I have some epicycles to calculate.
Depends on the "tone" of the species. If they are meant to be a wise race, they get an English accent. Specifically, a London accent.
You could do that from the comfort of you own home. At least in a few states.
It *was* a trilogy, but we don't talk about that.
What odd and medieval country do you live in where murder can only be prosecuted if there is someone to complain about it?
Of course. Everything is illegal. The cops and the DA get to choose when to enforce the law, and when not to. That is why you are fucked if they ever decide to gun for you, no matter how upstanding a citizen you are.
Probably, because then the black teen would be on trial for murder, while the white teen would be suspended for a while. Maybe.
Those guys had a permit. Apparently, a piece of paper from the government is all you need to be in the "right" regardless of how many you hurt or kill.
Welcome to the world of fascism, kids. In a free society, there would be no regulators giving these guys a free pass. If a company endangered the public like this, they would be sued for everything the company had, then they would go after the shareholders. Those who made the decisions that lead to those deaths would be prosecuted for manslaughter. Such a rigorous level of accountability means people wouldn't just do what the government required of them--they would do what it took to defend themselves IE ensure public safety.
People seem to think that free markets mean "anything goes", when the opposite is true. Free market regulations are more effective than government regulations, because the latter allows cop outs. Basically a letter from mommy excusing them for killing people and destroying property.
All points are moot in the world of authoritarian government.
Jesus Christ, dude. Calm the fuck down.
I don't think you are at all familiar with modern black culture. Bill Cosby has the same complaints as the GP. Is he a white supremecist? Does making valid criticisms of self destructive cultural norms mean that you HATE and want to ELIMINATE the people who carry that culture? Do liberals then want to lynch gun owners? Does Michael Bloomburg want to drag fat people behind his truck down 5th avenue? Do atheists want separate water fountains for religious people?
Get real.
This is what happens to EVERY GROUP that has things given to it for free. Search any population by % of people on welfare, and you will find increasingly self destructive culture. It's just human nature. If you don't earn something, you don't respect it. If you get something for free, you want more for the same price.
I bet you're fun at parties.
The tenets of Marxism are EXACTLY what the DNC (AND RNC) support. If they didn't, the US wouldn't have implemented so many planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Words don't have meaning to politicians. They twist them to mean anything they want. But their ACTIONS are the SAME.
Corporate power IS government power. Fascism is exactly the same as communism. It's just we don't call the beneficiaries "party members".
The right-left spectrum is a bit one dimensional, don't you think?
Fact is that both parties in the US are FASCIST, not right wing. There is a very large difference, as at least the right wing allows significant economic freedom.