I must have put too much sugar in my coffee, I missed the subtle taste of irony

FTA
" An NSA police officer shot one of the people dead dead and seriously injured the second."

Apparently the culprit was shot double-dead
Nerds love zombie stories, hence it is on /.

It is still easier to place solar panel farms a few hundred miles from Beijing and build transmission lines than to put them in orbit or the stratosphere

So, if Green Peace is fighting against the to primary providers of baseline power, no wait, they are also fighting against hydroelectric dams, so if Green Peace is fighting against the three primary providers of baseline power, where exactly do they think that the power is going to come from?

Are they suggesting that we are going to reduce the amount of power the individuals use?
Do they think that we are going to reduce the number of individuals?

Suspicion just requires that I see things that make me suspicious

Greenpeace claims to advocate for the environment
CO2 presents a huge threat to the environment
Nuclear power offers a way to maintain a baseline power supply without creating CO2
Greenpeace constantly works against the building of nuclear power plants
When one of the founders of Greenpeace spoke out about the advantages of nuclear power not creating CO2, they removed him from the organization
Nuclear power represents a threat to the fossil fuel industry's position as the primary baseline power supplier
By fighting nuclear power through lawsuits, Greenpeace makes it more likely that we will continue to use fossil fuels, even though they are causing damage to the environment by releasing CO2

There is nothing slanderous about stating the facts that present themselves
If I want to say that it makes me suspicious, then that is my right

I find your definitions to be very insightful, and have found myself in the liberal end of the pool based on the groups that you have defined

I think that the current conservatives have co-opted the definition to line their pockets and I find that to be unfortunate because I come from a long line of decent conservatives who did not value money over people

Our current health care system is profit based, and has seen larger increases in cost than nationalized healthcare systems like Britain, Canada, Spain, Taiwan or Australia

How is promoting a healthcare system that is not cost effective fiscally conservative?

I will have to say that we have a fundamentally different views on how the economy works

A recession is great for people who have cash on hand to buy up assets at foreclosure rates, it is horrible for everybody else who has debt against their assets, needs jobs or has their money in the stock market

The primary way to end a recession was demonstrated by FDR as he applied Keynesian economics to put cash into the economy at the consumer level, by hiring them to create infrastructure. This ignites markets by creating demand, and prolongs the recovery by creating resources for those markets to use and grow larger.

This continued growth was demonstrated over the following three decades as the American economy, and middle class grew at phenomenal rates

Some people do not believe in Keynesian economics. They call their version supply side economics and believe that you need to 'give' money to the corporations (via tax breaks and corporate welfare), and that it will somehow trickle down to the consumers. This has not been demonstrated to work out very well for the American economy (makes it prone to boom bust cycles) or the American middle class, which has been reduced by these policies.

I only see President Obama's shortcomings to be that he paid heed to supply side demands by including tax breaks in the stimulus and failing to spend more money on infrastructure build outs

As far as your claims of inflation, I find those to be spurious, much like the cries about hyperinflation resulting from the initial stimulus

Obama is living with the structural deficits placed on him by the prior admin and Congress, recognized war debt and the need to pull the country out of the recession.

The prior administration received a country with a positive position to reduce the national debt and ran it into the ditch with tax breaks to the wealthy and unfunded mandates, much like Reagan did before

I am continually taken aback at how the gop talks up the need to be tight with the purse strings, but continually drives more debt up, while the last two dem administrations have shown more economical savvy

The last time around, with Clinton, the gop claimed that he received a lagged positive effect from the prior admin, I doubt that anybody will believe that bull this time around

Greenpeace has made too much money off of an anti-nuclear stance. I suspect that they get more money from the koch bros, coal mines and big oil than most gop candidates

While I agree with you that Libertarian =/= Anarchy, you will probably get a lot of arguments that 'getting government to operate withing budget' =/= Libertarian either.

In my mind 'getting government to operate withing budget' == Fiscal Conservative, which is why I cannot vote for the 'modern' GOP which thinks that it's roles is to play world police while cutting taxes for the wealthy and putting the country into deep debt.

I find it odd that the most fiscally conservative national figure these days is President Obama, whose tight-fisted use of stimulus and reduction of the deficit during he recover would have probably pissed off FDR.

President Obama could pull off a really good Goldwater impersonation if he was only more willing to nuke some third world countries, he already manages to pull off most of the positive traits of Nixon.

To be honest, I was going for funny...

You should take a minute and read the article in Reason because the mental acrobats that the author goes through are stunning.
I lost a lot of respect for the publication as a result

Reason.com has a story about how Somalia has done really well without a functioning government, so maybe she will let the warlords take over America and turn it into _another_ libertarian paradise

Here is her pitch to the small government crowd:
"A wide range of scholarship and commentary on Somalia, most with no ideological ax to grind, tells an interesting and even somewhat encouraging story—one about a society with an unusual and robust clan-based system of dispute resolution and goods provision that has managed to keep daily life moving along even without a "Somali government.""
http://reason.com/archives/201...

Isn't this a duplicate from yesterday?
http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...

Oh yeah, that piece of astro-turf was about Intel and micron

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just get a company neutral submission about the technology and not the branding?

Wrap yourself in the flag much?
Playing the patriot does not make you right