What you have stated is basically at the heart of anti-immigration arguments, racism, and they type of blind anti-social individualism that is found among many on the right in the US. People who recognize opportunities and work to take advantage of those opportunities are fine so long as they were part of the group the antagonist happens to be apart of, but as soon as any other people from foreign places try to do the same thing the antagonist attempts to close the same door they had just come in through themselves. We need to have a much longer view of history than what is currently being prescribed.
The upcoming election is for the congress, but I fail to understand how that is an argument against what I said. I said that the only reason the article is mentioned at at this time and in this one-sided way is precisely because they are having an election soon.
+1 You actually are right though, some people in the US don't actually want to have to do anything related to supporting anyone but themselves. In other words, they want to be divorced from all social responsibilities. Regardless of this subset of our society, these social responsibilities (not only internal to our nation but also to the world) must be met or we will all continue to face the consequences of the inevitable problems that arise.
I think many people confuse people's desire for opportunities with a desire for a free ride.
Wow, you must live in a place where there is equality of opportunity! Please tell me of this magical place so that all of us can get there as fast as possibly and all be able to take advantage of all opportunities to as much degree as we would like to. If you don't live in such a place, then you obviously can't see past your nose.
I assume you are referring to the type of government we have here in the US: plutocracy, corporatocracy, or something along those lines. Definitely not a democracy. In a democracy, the people elect a representative to do something they want... the last part being a critical point. And the the self-described anonymous libertarian with a kindergarten understanding of what democracy is in post #31619844 is a complete asshat.
That is actually the only thing that has gone up for a vote in that country (as far as I know) and turned out against what the government wished would have happened. This year's election (which is really the whole reason why reports like the one that originally kicked of this thread are even showing up at this time) will be interesting to watch.
Absolutely. Some media outlets in that country played a major role in the coup attempts, even going as far as fabricating stories about Bolivarian protesters firing on and killing anti-Chavez protesters with help from the military and wealthy elite BEFORE any shootings took place. This on top of the (now well documented) fact that these stories were a complete fabrication. These events happened during the 2002 coup attempt which I believe was in in the beginning of the year. Those who were trying to overthrow the government needed a rallying point for beginning the attack on the government and these shootings, and the re-routing of the anti-Chavez protest towards the presidential quarters (where the supporters were) in order to make it seem like there was a violent attack by the evil Chavez supporters was the best they could think of, and they messed it up by completely underestimating the level of support Chavez's government actually had with the people of Venezuela (as well as the rest of the military, who shortly after the coup released Chavez).
Wrong on one important fact: Chavez did fire the executives of the state-owned company, but only after they tried to cause a collapse of the government through strangling it economically by calling for a shutdown of the company (which constitutes a large percentage of the government's income). They wouldn't do their job of running the company because they didn't like having to think about something other than increasing their profit, that is to think about what was best for the Venezuelan society as a whole. And they had many years where they weren't made to care about social issues and things like equality etc., so it's understandable they had a hard time taking these things into account. It's also understandable that they were thanked for their years of service as they were shown the door because of this.
You sir, have brought a slim amount of reason to this obscene thread. Thanks.
An anonymous reader writes "FSF's John Sullivan launches the Defective by Design campaign and petition to rain on Steve's parade, barely minutes out of the starting gate. 'This is a huge step backward in the history of computing,' said FSF's Holmes Wilson, 'If the first personal computers required permission from the manufacturer for each new program or new feature, the history of computing would be as dismally totalitarian as the milieu in Apple's famous Super Bowl ad.' The iPad has DRM writ large: you can only install what Apple says you may, and 'computing' goes consumer mainstream — no more twiddling, just sit back, spend your money, and watch the show — while we allow you to." What is clear is that the rise of the App Store removes control of the computer from the user. It makes me wonder what the next generation of OS X will look like.
You spelled boloney wrong.
That's hard-core... a roommate situation is a tricky one that brings out the absolute worst in two seemingly perfect people. Don't lie, you KNOW you share a good portion of the blame for what all went down between your roommate and you. And to top it off you air your dirty laundry with not only a perfect stranger, but someone who will be in the position to do something against your former roommate? No I'm not your former room-mate, just someone who has lived in a dorm and had friends who have done the same.
I love the yelling option.
Hugh Pickens writes "Farhad Manjoo writes in Slate that while the iPhone commands nearly 14 percent of smartphone sales and BlackBerry about 21 percent, Android has only 3 percent. And even though Android is far friendlier to developers, it has failed to attract anywhere near the number of apps now clogging the iPhone. Manjoo writes that Google went wrong by giving handset manufacturers and carriers too much control over the design and marketing of Android phones so there is no idealized 'Google phone' — instead, Android devices get names like the T-Mobile G1 or the myTouch 3G, and each is marketed separately and comes with its own distinct capabilities and shortcomings. 'Outside handset manufacturers lack ambition — -none of them even seems to be trying to match the capabilities of the iPhone, let alone to knock us down with features that far surpass those of Apple's device,' writes Manjoo. 'A smart handset manufacturer could build a top-of-the-line Android device that outshines Apple's phone in at least a few areas — better battery life, a much better Web browser, a brighter or bigger screen, faster or more functional controls... something that might help Android inspire gadget lust. But so far, that's not happening.' John Gruber echoes this advice and adds this advice to Android manufacturers: 'If Apple is BMW, you can be Porsche.'"