No doubt, but I know a lot more Rushians than Obanians so I hear it more. I still think Ferris Bueller has more to teach the world than any of the talking heads (no reference to David Byrne, et al intended) or politicians.

Incidentally, I hear a lot of American Conservatives going on about the "biased Liberal media". I much less often hear any concrete examples of such bias. And I myself have noticed conservative biased reporting, for example this report that blows one small thing way out of perspective and then uses it as a base to attack Obama. Compare it to this report of the same story, as well as the video of the Al Jazeera interview ie. the primary source.

Wow, that's a ridiculous mandate for NASA.

To me it doesn't seem that ridiculous. I mean NASA already does education, outreach, and PR stuff. It's not just about rocket science, although I'd hope that's what most of its budget is used for.

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/archive.aspx

Hope that helps.

Do you realize that you are offending communists (even those not radical) by comparing them you your politicians, Democrat or not?

By belief I am communist-utopian, meaning that I wish we could have TRUE communism, where everybody would have as much as they NEED (not WANT), like in the Star-Trek SF TV series, but utopian part means that I do not believe that that will happen (any time soon). Communism assumes people are of high self-awareness, high moral and think of the greater good of humanity (Only way to make sure your offspring will survive for a longer period of time. And that they all believe all must work equally, or at least to the best of their capabilities.

I am painfully aware that with the current belief system around the world there is NO WAY this will happen in next 300 years unless apocalypse happens and the rest of the humanity is forced in cooperation and to think differently in order to save them self.

Your democrats are NOWHERE NEAR those ideals, especially when they take money from the same Bank's and economical moguls as Republicans do. Your political system is just large scale power struggle put up as a show for the people, while when they achieve rise to the power they do how FED and large corporations that paid for their campaigns wish.

Do you know that J.F.K. signed executive order that ordered Treasury Department to print your own money, excluding privately own F**E*D from this job, just 5 months before he was killed: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm. This order has never been revoked, it's implementation stopped not long after he was killed, and no President after JFK, Democrat or not dared to use it. I think this says enough about who actually runs your country.


As long as "they" can keep you hating each other they are safe from uprising against their rule. I have seen same scenario in my country, but more blatant, we can see when they make a deal under the table since in my country 60-70% of population closely monitors politics, both domestic and international. Have you seen "Mr.Smith goes to Washington" from 1939?

Politics???

YAAAWN

+1.

+1 more

+1 from me also.

I prefer to read about informed (or ill-informed) debate on which OS is the best, and why the advocates of either system think so. Enough with the politics already.

I had a customer once, who had immigrated here to the US from Sweden. Sweden is billed as the "socialist paradise"- I thought of it when you said "everybody would have as much as they need...".

Everyone in Sweden has as much as they need. My customer was an engineer. In Sweden, he lived in a small apartment.....went out to a movie and to eat maybe once or twice a month. That was his life. He came here because just having what one needs makes for a pretty dull existence. Why be an engineer when you could wash cars or flip burgers and still have "what you need" at the expense of engineers and doctors?

And is there one universal standard of what one needs for everyone? I'm 48 years old and don't bother with health insurance because i haven't been to a doctor in 32 years...yet the communists in this country try to tell me that I must have health insurance, because they want me to pay for those who are not capable of maintaining their own health.

I live on a very modest income, but I am happy because I have built for myself the life that I want. I like to make my own decisions and determine the actions of my own life. Many things which other people "need", I don't (Some people "need" a house. I live in a mobile home quite contentedly), and something which they don't need, I do (i.e. some people are content to live in an apartment- I live on a 28 acre farm- I'd rather die than live in an apartment)

I guess my point is: Why does someone like yourself feel that it is there right and/or duty to force a certain standard of life on everybody? Such may make people "equal", but people are not equal, and of what good is equality if it merely means the equal sharing of misery?

Can we please get off the politics already! This is "The All New Linux vs Windows MegaSuperThread", is it not?

I will just make this correction/explanation and I am done with politics.

OK, so, when I wrote about NEED vs WANT, I was thinking about eradicating Greed ("Greed is an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods;Greed (Latin, avaritia), also known as avarice or covetousness, is, like lust and gluttony, a sin of excess."), so individual does not take more of the finite resource than his ration is AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. Best explained with Tragedy of Commons article

P.S.FYI, ANY statement or act that enforces power over someone, like grounding your kids for misbehaving is, by definition, also act of politics.

Rationing needs at the expense of wants eliminates the will to produce needs, thereby an unsustainable ideology.

You'll have to elaborate. You make it sound as though there is a big pile of wealth somewhere, and that the greedy somehow manage to comewith a bigger shovel and take an inordinate share at the expense of others.

How does a person's greed relate to the needs or wants of others? Usually, a person's greed will affect his own time and efforts and even have a positive effect by causing that person to produce more wealth (Often resulting in him employing others; patronizing other's businesses; etc.)

If I were greedy, what bearing would that have on someone who is naturally lazy or who is irresponsible or who chooses to have kids which they can not support, etc.?

By saying you'd like to eradicate greed, you are admitting that you want to force an economic-political system on others and control their lives in order to effect a change in their beliefs, philosophy and morality- something which can not be achieved through economics or politics- nor should it be.

And what about the poor who are greedy? -the guy who works for $8/hr. but buys a late-model car on credit or a fancy TV rather than saving some money- and then requires support from the taxpayers when a rainy day comes? Isn't that kind of greed just as bad as a rich person's greed? And how does an economic system restrain that trait?

O-K...let's get off the politics-