Bill Moyers is about as fair as you get when it comes to media. He definitely sees the world through a prism of liberal empathy, so I can see where you might find him unbalanced. Every newsperson and newswriter is biased towards what they believe to be true, and it's not really a problem so long as you are fair about it. The problem with FOX is not that it presents a far right perspective on the news, it's that they do it in such a dishonest way, and then call it 'fair and balanced.' Do you ever think how ridiculous it is that the phrase you choose to use so often 'fair and balanced' comes from the largest and sleaziest propoganda outfit in the history of the planet? >> ^quantumushroom:

For all of you that chide Fox, Moyers's trumpeting shows are nothing close to being fair or balanced, he's a mirror for liberal vanity. At least Rush does his schtick on how own dime and creates wealth, which the Moyers's of the world then siphon away for who-knows-what.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Probably not, but do you notice how calm, reasoned and intelligent his show is? Why is it, do you think, that publicly funded media is so vastly superior to privately funded media? >> ^quantumushroom:
Has Moyers ever had a show that taxpayers didn't have to pay for?

>> ^RadHazG:

anyone know what that green halo is?


That is refraction at its finest. It also turns yellow, orange, and red (ect) because of the position of the camera relative to the sun and the atmosphere. The atmosphere really is just like a big ocean in the sky, and as such, you get to see all sorts of colors at the right angles, like an earth prism. I watch a lot of shuttle feeds btw

Thanks, homey! Here's another trade secret: the rabbit is already inside the top hat, only hidden!

>> ^garmachi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Gay prisms ruin the straightness of light.

Dude, that was very clever. The implied rainbow really makes that joke work!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Gay prisms ruin the straightness of light.


Dude, that was very clever. The implied rainbow really makes that joke work!

Gay prisms ruin the straightness of light.

You can think whatever you like. I know what I said.

And calling people's name is not normally productive, I would agree on that. But i think a time should come where stupidity should be called out. just that!

And as I said, nothing good comes from religion, because of the point I said before. Would your brother stop being a good person if he wasn't a mormon? If he would, then you're right, and you win.

"I am 100% correct" .... WOW. seriously? And I'm the fundamentalist who is absolutely right?
Man, spare me. I have better things to do.


>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I read every thing you wrote.
And I think you do want to reach into other people's minds and edit what they think. You repeat it over and over. (And calling people names is not productive nor particularly intellectually rigorous.)
You also speculated and made up a lot of stories about a lot of things that I never said, and certainly do not believe. You might consider sticking to what I actually say. It makes any debate stay on track.
You say nothing good comes from religion. I say some good comes from religion. That is where I started in this conversation, and I have never wavered from my main point.
I am pretty good at seeing two sides, or three sides to any situation. However, in this case, I am 100% correct. I see evidence of some good coming from religion all the time.
If you don't, then I repeat my conclusion that you are indistinguishable from die-hard fundamentalists who see the world only through the prism of their own belief.
I love atheism, I love the rigorous intelligent analysis it represents.
I do not like atheism when it becomes indistinguishable from fundamentalist religion.
Don't know what else there is to say about this. I can keep repeating myself, if you want.

Oh, I read every thing you wrote.

And I think you do want to reach into other people's minds and edit what they think. You repeat it over and over. (And calling people names is not productive nor particularly intellectually rigorous.)

You also speculated and made up a lot of stories about a lot of things that I never said, and certainly do not believe. You might consider sticking to what I actually say. It makes any debate stay on track.

You say nothing good comes from religion. I say some good comes from religion. That is where I started in this conversation, and I have never wavered from my main point.

I am pretty good at seeing two sides, or three sides to any situation. However, in this case, I am 100% correct. I see evidence of some good coming from religion all the time.

If you don't, then I repeat my conclusion that you are indistinguishable from die-hard fundamentalists who see the world only through the prism of their own belief.

I love atheism, I love the rigorous intelligent analysis it represents.

I do not like atheism when it becomes indistinguishable from fundamentalist religion.

Don't know what else there is to say about this. I can keep repeating myself, if you want.

There is no rational argument to be had here. The left doesn't view life through the prism of right and wrong, only rich and poor (or rich versus poor).

On the one hand, the video is amusing and at least there is an attempt at creativity. On the other, this is nothing to celebrate, and while some use these cards as intended, many are sold or traded for cash, drugs and booze, yet another wasteful government system with no oversight or accountability (but who cares as the intentions are good).

The top 1% wealthy already pay 40% of the taxes. Forcing them to pay more will weaken the economy but snag a few more voters seeking "revenge" for perceived economic injustices.

Maybe the wealthy aren't "creating jobs" at the rate the left wants (that is, enough to stay in power) but what we DO know for certain is the socialist retards of this regime can't create a single job for less than half-a-million dollars each. Hasn't the Kenyawaiian already blown 4 trillion in fiat money with nothing to show for it? I'll take my chances with the 'evil' rich investors.

PS who are the real racists, the one who demand Black Americans need special gummint help at all times or those holding them to the same standards as everyone else?



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So let's ignore the whole wealth & income inequality reality..
to wallow in the fantasy that uneducated darkies & leftists are really to blame for "stealing all taxpayers' money"..

Hey, Mushroom.. I think one of your masters needs another 100k or so.
You know, so he can hurry up and "create jobs" for you and all your friends. ; ]

We all see things through the deforming prism of our own minds. To some, bullying is the deconstruction of political philosophy. To others it's ball busting. To others it's the use of invective like libertard or statist. To others it's gossip and shit talk. To others it's the casual use of sexist or racist humor.

Negative Index Materials ("NIMs") have been mostly explained with wave propagation inside the material. "Sort of" like a photon coming into a circular two doored building. When it comes in both doors open and unlock, but it closes it's door (giving off heat I would think; here). Then only able to come out it's door. It is the material that does the neat stuff as it changes the way light is able to propagate inside the structure.

The structure just happens to meet some peculiar conditions to get this to work (equaling constants and what-not; like a prism in someways).

That's how I've understood it (this is recent news, ~less than one or two years maybe). Awesome interview.

>> ^bareboards2:

I capisce. I just don't agree.
Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.
<oddly manipulative text>You arguing about this completely proves my point.</oddly manipulative text>
You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.
I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?
Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.
I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.
<patronizing>Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again?</patronizing> He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.
<oddly manipulative text> You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.</oddly manipulative text>

I see, it's simple! In your view:

1> make concessions to undeserving benefactors, legitimizing their craziness.
2> win(?; see below) the battle but loose the war
3> Profit!

We can win the this battle and win the war. This vid is fine to represent solely a religious view of this issue, but the correct way to attack this issue and assert the integrity of government is to keep them out of our pants as a principal.

And to the point, and this argument didn't work in one of the more liberal states in the nation. Not one repub was swayed. I guess the water spilled eh?

lol

>> ^bareboards2:
I capisce. I just don't agree.
Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.
You arguing about this completely proves my point.
You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.
I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?
Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.
I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.
Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.
You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.
If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

I capisce. I just don't agree.

Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.

You arguing about this completely proves my point.

You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.

I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?

Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.

I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.

Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.

You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.


>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"


I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.
If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

I capisce. I just don't agree.

Look, you have to talk to folks in ways they will hear.

You arguing about this completely proves my point.

You are arguing that there is a perfect way to discuss this. Because of your mindset.

I absolutely agree with you about the reason why government should stay out of bedrooms and houses. But I can also see, very clearly, that this argument will hold no water with religious types. Why can't you?

Which proves my point that religious people need to hear it in their language.

I would also caution about you believing the lawmaker "implied" god's wants this. That is NOT what he said. In fact, I would be surprised if he is religious at all.

Might I suggest that you listen to the vid again? He chose his words very carefully. He is looking to change deep held beliefs -- all that stuff about "think about it later", he wants these folks to be reflective within their own logic system and he understands, as you clearly do not, that letting go of a long held belief system is hard.

You can prove me wrong by agreeing with me now. Or you can continue to prove my point by repeating endless variations on how this should only be discussed through the prism of government interference.



In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:

Methinks you missed the point, my friend.
He came up with a religious argument to counter religious stupidity.
This may be a turning point.
>> ^rottenseed:
upvote for the sentiment but he totally missed the point. The point being "what the fuck do we, the government, have any business in people's sexuality as long as its not hindering another?"



I totally know what you mean. This is an ends justifies a means type of thing. But just because he said it, and implied that it's what god must want, doesn't mean people will agree.

If you make the argument that the government has NO business in our personal lives, I think that everybody can find something about that they can relate to. Capisci?

Nearly 64% of the lowest 20% income bracket do not vote. Tell me DT, why do you hate poor people?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
If it is decided that certain classes of citizens should lose their right to vote, then who makes that call? If it is decided that people must pass a test before gaining the right to vote, then who writes that test? Who grades it?
I personally find Neo-Liberals/Neo-Conservatives too naive to vote; indifferent to the violence, misery, exploitation, pollution and economic decay their thinking has caused us over that past several decades. If I were to write a political literacy test, these people would fail it.
Would this be fair?
The human mind is excellent at rationalization. Do something that you know to be wrong and within a fraction of a second, your mind has already come up with several ways justify or dismiss the wrong doing. We all do it, and in most cases it is a fairly innocent process, but when you get a mass of humans using this process collectively to justify taking action against another class of people, that's how fascism is born.
Pre-WW2 Germany was filled with normal, rational people, whom for whatever reason, were able to rationalize violence, conquest, bigotry and genocide.
But that was a long time ago, right?
If you take away the prism of patriotism and the divine right of American exceptionalism, haven't we already rationalized the violence of war in the Middle East and the conquest of their natural resources? Haven't we already rationalized bigotry towards labor, The poor, Muslims, African Americans, Mexicans, gay people and liberals? Haven't we already rationalized the genocide of Native Americans and residents of Iraq, Afgannistan, Chile, El Salvador, Columbia, Vietnam....? Aren't there people already in the process of rationalizing future violence and conquest in Iran?
I know it makes people on this site uncomfortable to discuss fascism, or the possibility that America is taking steps in that direction, but if you take off the patriotic blinders, the signs are there.
This is how it starts.