I always think they are playing some kind of game when they bring forward presidential candidates that seem more like whack jobs you read about on the internet than someone who'd be running your country. And then one who ends up being the best of the bunch is........basically the definition of a one percenter and is pretending he's not. Exactly the group most people in the country have a severe distrust of.....and they pick a guy whose company is the definition of "all short term profits" when it comes to make decisions for the "improving" of companies other than their own....than usually end up costing jobs, bringing on debt and later killing off the company they "improved" under said debt after being sold.

Seems kinda............the exact opposite of who and what should be getting put forth in front of the voters huh. Much like all the Copyright laws and other spying things that keep getting passed yet massive disapproval from the general population when they actually understand what is being voted on.

And very few in the media seems to notice how nuts all of this is. Insanity doesn't describe it properly.

@enoch

Howdy. First off, thanks; coming back to this discussion is kind of interesting after a few years.

My thoughts:

1. I wasn't a huge Obama supporter - but I did expect more from him in terms of change on health care (the US system is still a crazy-quilt of expensive nonsense) and reduced military expenditure (I expected a faster withdraw timetable from both Iraq and Afghanistan). I thought he could sell his vision, but it hasn't worked; he's lost people and as a result doesn't have the political will to make real change. It's too bad, because I think he did intend some good things.

2. I think the Occupy movement is a good illustration of the point I wanted to make. They had a good thing going and some scattered good ideas - but they didn't integrate themselves into the political movement. They distrusted it, shunned it. Candidates couldn't espouse Occupy ideals to get elected because Occupy people were poorly organized, had vague goals, and were not reliable voters. Nobody worried about not getting re-elected because they didn't line up with Occupy.

3. By contrast, the Tea Partiers had a much more substantial impact on policy because they did connect to the Republican party, connected with candidates, and they got out the vote (sometimes at least). If they could have found anyone who wasn't a complete and utter moron to lead them (I guess it's hard to find sane leaders when your policies are nuts), they could have got a lot of stuff changed (mostly for the worse, of course, but change nonetheless).

I think if Occupy could have organized better (maybe have some leaders, or at least rallied behind some statement of principle and ideas for change), it could have been a huge force for good. I think they were hampered by exactly this sense of hopelessness. They didn't actually believe they could make a difference in political decisions, so they didn't really try - and because of this, in the end I don't think they've had much lasting effect. A lot of their ideas resonated with a powerful number of people, but all that effort and will got channeled nowhere - just anger and hopelessness and failure.

I still think positive change is very possible in the US (and the world in general), and I think it's still most likely to happen (in the US) through the normal democratic process. It'll take some real leadership, though. Someone like Ron Paul - but with much less crazy and more charisma - could turn the Occupy-type crowd into a very potent political force that could do some real good. (On Ron Paul: he did certainly face some unfair extra hurdles as an anti-establishment candidate - but I think his main problem was that too many people legitimately disagreed with him).

Will it happen? I don't know. As I've said, I think a big problem is that the current generation - the students and young people who've driven change throughout history - distrusts the entire political process. More than that, they distrust "leadership" in general. Returning to Occupy, they seemed to be actively against leaders emerging or having cohesive policies to rally around.

That's cool and fun and Internet-like, but it doesn't get the job done.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:


You have to ask yourself, if he's willing to lie about his education, what else is he willing to lie about?
I got about 10-15 minutes in and couldn't listen anymore. I like hearing a well-(in)formed counter-argument but this guy isn't even on a high school level of scientific understanding.


Not only that, but even in the first few MINUTES he already doesn't understand the very NATURE the way the brain interprets data and information. He's spending time talking about this important ability in humans yet leaves out ALL of psychology and neuroscience and what they have to say on the subject. Guess what they have to say? So he goes on and on talking about this WORTHLESS notion of design and doesn't understand that his brain is forcing him to BELIEVE this IS TRUE! All you have to ask him to disarm him is , "Why? Why does it look designed? Why?", then watch him splutter till his brain explodes, you know why, because due to psychology you BELIEVE it does, WITH BIAS--and it goes deeper too (much how you see optical illusions, why do those appear to be optical illusions? I don't know, why does that image appear to be designed?)--he will NEVER be able to answer that question, cause quite frankly he doesn't have the education obviously needed to do so.

His entire speech was over in the first few minutes, let alone ten to fifteen. Doctor my ass, "I" could lecture him into oblivion (as I'm sure a great many other people here could too).

This is why I've watched about three of shiny's video embeds (this being a semi-fourth as I only watched enough to know it was an epic failure). They all come from Christian based scientists that have credentials from said "Universities" or "Colleges" (next to public school, these are actually a step down in your learning experience) and are woefully unexperienced, have literal no knowledge IN THE FIELD they supposedly are talking about; or even worse they do terrible even IN the topics IN their field. This stuff works wonderfully for the religious media, religious politicians, the religious faithful, BUT you never see CERN, ITER, MIT, NASA, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA's JPL), and the various host of scientific federation teams and organizations working on ALL sorts of projects. They are never together because the other side only presents LARGE quantities BUNK "science" and BUNK or JUNK "scientific" videos. They are rightfully scorned by the media and the true scientific establishment.

You have to understand that the nature of what this man was saying in his video, like what @xxovercastxx said in his post, it's complete garbage. You can't even listen to the first minutes of it because he's already missing the boat. NO ONE except for fellow Christians will come out in support of this man's argument. There will be no "HOLY SHIT, HOW COULD WE NOT HAVE SEEN THIS" moment, because the man is an idiot. While shiny will think it's just bias and bigotry at work on the part of media and "THE WORLD'S SCIENTIFIC MINDS" (that's a lot of people shiny), they'll continue to build us useful things like planes, computers, fusion reactors (2018 for the first one), rockets, satellites, medicines, gene manipulation (already here)--->cures to genetic diseases (around the corner), cars, buildings, bridges, machines, new limbs (2030-40; stem-cell research could go FAR faster depending on how much we help), never dying (this one is tricky; some say 20!, I'd say more around 30-40 years out, BUT who gets it and what happens when we do get it--it could get scary), dams, should I go on i could list ALL night and never stop--scientists have done SO MUCH for us and still do. They are literally are best chance for a better future. People like the man in video are dangerous. They cause distrust and give mis-information about the greatest men and women that live on this Earth (other than those that are TRULY selfless souls, looking out for others always). People like that create a "rot" a disease in society; it's the "depression you feel in the air here in America. I point MY FINGER at them as the cause. They WILL NOT let progress nor happiness win, they are only concerned with what they "think", and what they "think" is not right.

What will these Christian scientists make, invent, or create for humanity, to help? Dams, cars, trains, light-bulbs--no...more videos to show scientists they're wrong... What did you get taught in school?

Ya know I was a kid when the riots broke out and I had to miss a Birthday party because we were too scared in our homes of the riots in SoCal. I've heard everything about Rodney King my whole life, people telling me this and that, making jokes about it news articles and such. I read a BBC article on the day he died and they said that as a result of the beatings he suffered brain damage. No News Channel or article I've ever read has ever mentioned that, almost like they were trying to sow distrust of this guy who's whining about the cops beating him.

I even compared the BBC article with the Associated Press article, no mention of brain damage just a graphic description of the beating. I guess they don't understand that a stupid racist decision can have long term effects.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

Would he have to suck a dick before you could trust his position on gay marriage? He's on the correct side of the issue, afaic. Why does he need any different motivation than simply recognizing that there are hundreds of thousands of people sitting in prison for a victimless, non-violent "crime"? He can't be outraged unless he's smoked pot?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Enzoblue:
Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

I hear ya.
I also don't know how to relate to that.
Not even a sip of wine? Did he always feel superior? Or, just his own fear?


That is such a weird stance to take. What is it about drugs and alcohol that is so integral to your experience that you don't know how to relate to a person that's never tried it? I drink, but there's nothing magical about alcohol. I'd be the exact same person if I'd never had any.

Do you feel the same way about other people that have never tried other experiences? Have never eaten beetles or fermented fish or rotten soybeans or killed a man or surfed on the north shore or climbed a mountain?

You've never climbed a Russian bridge and stood on the rails? Did you always feel superior?

>> ^Enzoblue:

Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.


I hear ya.

I also don't know how to relate to that.

Not even a sip of wine? Did he always feel superior? Or, just his own fear?

Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

Smart gal to distrust the advances of a red-headed male-Few, the trustworthy of the ginger-bred-men!

Thank you, I had not seen that before. I met him just recently at a very cozy book signing here in Victoria, BC. He was promoting his new book of collected stories, magazine articles, and interviews; "Distrust That Particular Flavor". He is everything that you imagine him to be, shy, quirky, ironic, brilliant. Truly a rare individual.

>> ^aurens:

There's a badass interview with William Gibson over at The Paris Review, in case you haven't already seen it.>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
The first time that I ever heard of the term cool hunting or a cool hunter was in the William Gibson book Pattern Recognition written in 2001-2002. Regardless of any proof otherwise I am going to continue to believe that, just as he termed the phrase "cyberspace" and in essence predicted the prevalence of the internet in society, that he also invented the term cool hunting.
=) You go WG!
>> ^PHJF:
Obviously using "cool" in the hipster sense of the word.

Two of the traits I consider sickest in a person are a negative attitude towards sex, or sexual repression, and a distrust of education.

Okay, it's not quite up there with "likes to rub his dick on stinging nettles", but we're operating in the same area. They're so destructive, and they indicate a very scared and underdeveloped human being.

>> ^schlub:

Fuck this fuckin' hypocrite. How come he can't have a fair and balanced argument about vaccines?


The difference is that there are many objective reasons to distrust the insurance/Big Pharma/Government cartel.

I don't agree with Maher's position on vaccines but being paranoid about them doesn't strike me as being inconsistent with logic (Tuskegee syphilis experiment).

It's definitely a blind spot for Maher and I bet he'll admit it eventually.

Sorry but you obviously don't understand anything about Medicare fraud, because virtually 100% of Medicare fraud is perpetuated by the Doctors themselves NOT the patients.

Don't believe me look at your last hospital bill and ask them why it cost you $100 for a pillow $300 for a blanket $1000 for a pair of forceps, $500 for a meal.

I get shots at my doctor for pain that cost me $2500 a shot I asked the insurance company why they cost so much and they said they were listed as "experimental" so I asked my Doctor what they were and he told me they were just normal lidocaine shots like a Dentist uses, they probably cost the Doctor $20 bucks each.

And last time I checked Doctors don't need welfare.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Just Medicare fraud costs us 60 billion dollars a year. A YEAR. And no one seems to give a damn. Do you? So yeah, the "poor" with their two cars, appliances, 3 tvs, and most owning their own homes should be paying more than ZERO. Maybe they'll be less tolerant of their brethren grifting the system.






>> ^rottenseed:
That's kind of silly. I mean, here is a person that would be affected negatively by the tax adjustments he's proposing for the cause of aiding the US...and yet here you are, a nobody, with no money, nobody knows who the hell you are telling him that he's wrong. He's telling you that nobody in the super rich community is paying enough. He knows. He knows a lot better than any one of us. I don't get why people like you side with the uber-rich that don't want to pay more in taxes, unless you are a wealthy miser yourself. To be honest I don't even have a problem paying the taxes I pay. And increasing my tax bracket certainly isn't going to keep me from trying to make more money. The only thing I care about is where the money goes. That's where my distrust kicks in. Spending on a country's needs is fine, but squandering is not.
I do agree with you on the point that it shouldn't all be going toward social programs. Especially ones that have no way or desire to stop people milking the system. >> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell

That's kind of silly. I mean, here is a person that would be affected negatively by the tax adjustments he's proposing for the cause of aiding the US...and yet here you are, a nobody, with no money, nobody knows who the hell you are telling him that he's wrong.

As an American, I am free to tell anyone they are wrong, even the current President who is wrong 98% of the time. No one seems to have a problem telling me I'm wrong.

Do you think I'm a "nobody" because I have "no" money? DEMOCRAT Thomas Jefferson died broke. Was he a nobody?

He's telling you that nobody in the super rich community is paying enough. He knows.
He knows a lot better than any one of us. I don't get why people like you side with the uber-rich that don't want to pay more in taxes, unless you are a wealthy miser yourself.

No, I would say most of the sifters make more than me, for now. My beef is what you and apparently Gates think the guvmint is going to do with the "extra" cash, since the bastards already make and borrow on their own, at our peril. Remember that magical trillion Obama spent with no results?

To be honest I don't even have a problem paying the taxes I pay. And increasing my tax bracket certainly isn't going to keep me from trying to make more money. The only thing I care about is where the money goes. That's where my distrust kicks in. Spending on a country's needs is fine, but squandering is not.

Just Medicare fraud costs us 60 billion dollars a year. A YEAR. And no one seems to give a damn. Do you? So yeah, the "poor" with their two cars, appliances, 3 tvs, and most owning their own homes should be paying more than ZERO. Maybe they'll be less tolerant of their brethren grifting the system.












>> ^rottenseed:

That's kind of silly. I mean, here is a person that would be affected negatively by the tax adjustments he's proposing for the cause of aiding the US...and yet here you are, a nobody, with no money, nobody knows who the hell you are telling him that he's wrong. He's telling you that nobody in the super rich community is paying enough. He knows. He knows a lot better than any one of us. I don't get why people like you side with the uber-rich that don't want to pay more in taxes, unless you are a wealthy miser yourself. To be honest I don't even have a problem paying the taxes I pay. And increasing my tax bracket certainly isn't going to keep me from trying to make more money. The only thing I care about is where the money goes. That's where my distrust kicks in. Spending on a country's needs is fine, but squandering is not.
I do agree with you on the point that it shouldn't all be going toward social programs. Especially ones that have no way or desire to stop people milking the system. >> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell

That's kind of silly. I mean, here is a person that would be affected negatively by the tax adjustments he's proposing for the cause of aiding the US...and yet here you are, a nobody, with no money, nobody knows who the hell you are telling him that he's wrong. He's telling you that nobody in the super rich community is paying enough. He knows. He knows a lot better than any one of us. I don't get why people like you side with the uber-rich that don't want to pay more in taxes, unless you are a wealthy miser yourself. To be honest I don't even have a problem paying the taxes I pay. And increasing my tax bracket certainly isn't going to keep me from trying to make more money. The only thing I care about is where the money goes. That's where my distrust kicks in. Spending on a country's needs is fine, but squandering is not.

I do agree with you on the point that it shouldn't all be going toward social programs. Especially ones that have no way or desire to stop people milking the system. >> ^quantumushroom:

Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell