hard eyeroll

dave rubin has some deeply flawed ideas but this is just a limp jab that's, ironically, trying to ride rubin's coattails. to the point of naming his channel in response to rubin's show. (which, oddly enough, isn't the only YT channel doing that).

@newtboy

i agree with pretty everything you said,but in rubins defense,that is what they identify themselves as.

but i agree,both those who identify as either liberal or conservative need to call out the bullshit when people claim they represent a certain political philosophy.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/vera-rubin-1928-2016/

https://twitter.com/archillect/status/812633945095503872

jesus,could we all stop with the histrionics already?

there are reasons why trump won,and it certainly was not because he is a decent human being,he is not,he is a terrible human being.

so if you are going to assume what kind of president he is going to be based solely on his emotionally,super-charged rhetoric,then you are..by definition..pre-judging.

i do not know what kind of president he is going to be,and neither do you.

i suspect it going to be in the area of horrifying and bumbling buffoon,but we won't know until he gets in office.

all rubin is pointing out is that there are some positives,and freaking out does nothing,and is based on assumption.

but chew on this for a minute.
both the democrats and republicans HATE trump and the fact he won has scared the living shit out of both parties.the political elite just got kicked in the balls.

i have been watching in horror as trump began to surround himself with some of the most vile,and opportunistic people:gingrich,gulliani,christie,and let us not forget the christian supremacist mike pence.

yet two days ago pence cleared all the lobbyist choices trump had made for positions in his cabinet.they are calling it the "pence purge".was this a political ploy to stick with the "drain the swamp" meme?

sure..that is possible.
but it is still a good sign.

and rubin brings up a good point in regards to trump.he likes being popular and loved.while i find this narcissistic and childish,and not a quality i want in a president,it does offer a window where normal people can apply pressure to his presidency,and that is no small influence.

hey,i get it,trump is a bumbling buffoon who is a terrible human being,but he won't be this countries first awful human being to hold the presidency.

and we really do not know what kind of president he is going to be.so all rubin is saying is:remain cautiously optimistic.

i say:be cautiously optimistic,but prepare for the worst.

because many people have concerns,and i think those concerns are valid.i suspect that a trump presidency will rival the bush era,possibly worse,but i could be wrong.not the first time i was wrong.

so this could all manifest in a pleasant surprise..or a horrible nightmare,but we won't know until trump actually takes over the job.

You should probably read and understand what straw man fallacy actually means before suggesting that I've used it. For my argument to satisfy the criteria of a straw man, there would be no one saying that the 1% ought to be taxed more than they are. And, yet tens of millions (if not more) Americans either believe (or are lead to believe) that taxing the 1% would somehow decrease the amount of inequality that exists between (the likes of) them and (the likes of) Rick Rubin. I'm sure that many of them are actual or wanna-be 'record producers', but such an attempt to "come up with a single name" is in fact your attempt at a straw man fallacy, not mine.

You seem to equate "envy-fiends" with "liberals" here. I suppose that it's an understandable conflation tho, seeing as how you seem to consider yourself to be a "liberal" and thus (possibly) know yourself an envy-fiend, and can therefore link the two as being evidently interchangeable.

Perhaps, as a "spokesperson" for "liberals," then, you'd like to clarify for me what it is that the envy-fiends "really" say?

And I'm curious, too, as to whether anyone (other than me) actually care what you (as a "liberal" spokesperson) think (aside from those who have their fun at your expense).

Just like Mr. Rubin would likely remain in the 1% in any system, whether the state is run by "liberals" or by "conservatives," so would the envy-fiends remain so, either way. (BTW, I'm not calling you an envy-fiend, but you made the link for whatever -- Freudian-or-other -- reasons that seem to be quite personal to you.)

Not for nothing, but Rick serves as yet another "poster boy" for how there will never be income "equality." Mr. Rubin would not be "equal" in salary to most people, whether there's a free market, a crony capitalist market, a socialist non-market, or a communist non-market.

Eminem, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the Beastie Boys, Sir Mix-a-Lot, Lana Del Rey, Krishna Das, Johnny Cash, Adele, Rage Against the Machine, Run DMC, Danzig, Slayer, the (extremely versatile) list of course goes on and on (and on). That's why Mr. Rubin is in the 1%.. Because you (and tens or hundreds of millions of others) listen and like the albums that he produces and not the ones produced by most of the other wanna-be (or actual) "music producers."

But, of course, the envy-fiends have their "reasons" as to why they think they should be paid that kind of money and/or deserve (like mobsters do) to have a a piece of his pie.

Or that if you could only get others to vote in a certain way, you'd be Rick Rubin, or in his shoes. Such a conceit reinforces the obvious: you can only control your self. Little-to-no benefit comes from worrying about or trying to influence what other people do or don't do (especially when it has nothing to do with you and you can't do anything about it anyway). The conceit that anything else is the case leads to profound suffering on both the personal as well as on the social and political levels.

Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter, U.S. boxer famous in folk song, dies at 76

"Working for Marvel, the Super Bowl commercial, did you get a lot of reaction to that Super Bowl commercial?"

http://youtu.be/7SlILk2WMTI

Not sure Rubin made any mistake here.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fail, TV, news, blooper' to 'fail, TV, news, blooper, samuel l jackson, laurence fishburne, ktla, sam rubin' - edited by xxovercastxx

Freaky ... Rubin Cube? =o)

Nonetheless, Congress repealed the law and the nation suffered the tragic consequences of the 2008 financial crisis about a decade later.

It may be implied that the repeal of Glass-Steven Seagal led to the 2008 crisis but evidence is scant.

"The legislation was signed into law by President Clinton on November 12, 1999. Clinton's support of the repeal is revealed in the following statement by a Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary"

“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”

And in his own statement upon CLINTON signing the act into law:

"“Over the past seven years we have tried to modernize the economy. And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority.”

"Frontline: The Warning" covers some of the same material covered in the interview above - Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and Geithner during the Clinton years. It also profiles Brooksley Born and her concern about derivatives.

http://videosift.com/video/Frontline-The-Warning-Sneak-Peek-PBS

>> ^Kevlar:

Too bad they didn't start that bot in Battle Chess mode. Would have loved to see it crush each piece and wipe off the dust in the side bin.


That would had been cool!