There's actually a fairly extensive literature now on the benefits of meditation (sans the woowoo). Lots of health benefits, including long term effects like staving off cognitive decline (e.g., dementia). Expert meditators can show all kinds of interesting cognitive benefits. I keep meaning to take up the practice myself.

>> ^Jinx:

I wish meditation didn't have all this newage connotations. I've been meditating on and off in a similar manner as he describes (ie, focusing on breath, on the bodies sensations in the present etc) as a way to fight stress/anxiety/depression. It works well, although I've no idea how well grounded in science it is.
I definitely think its something worth looking into even if your not having trouble with anxiety etc. It honestly allows me to have healthier thoughts and just generally a clearer rational, and that in turn keeps the anxiety, depression and all the rest of that bad shit away. But yah, when I first started I was supes skeptical cos I envisioned holding crystals and burning incense while chanting a strange language.
Anyway, I'm glad Sam Harris is talking about it.

I wish meditation didn't have all this newage connotations. I've been meditating on and off in a similar manner as he describes (ie, focusing on breath, on the bodies sensations in the present etc) as a way to fight stress/anxiety/depression. It works well, although I've no idea how well grounded in science it is.

I definitely think its something worth looking into even if your not having trouble with anxiety etc. It honestly allows me to have healthier thoughts and just generally a clearer rational, and that in turn keeps the anxiety, depression and all the rest of that bad shit away. But yah, when I first started I was supes skeptical cos I envisioned holding crystals and burning incense while chanting a strange language.

Anyway, I'm glad Sam Harris is talking about it.

Nonetheless, Congress repealed the law and the nation suffered the tragic consequences of the 2008 financial crisis about a decade later.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

I now envision war where enemies will hide in well grounded clothing and try to slow cook each other.

>> ^kymbos:

I hereby confirm the accuracy of the above statements.


I envision a 'GADOOSH' sound and a large red stamp when I read that statement

>> ^mgittle:
The problem with fractional reserve systems using fiat currency is their reliance on growth. It should be obvious even to children that "growth" cannot be sustained indefinitely in a closed system (the planet Earth). You can argue technology will fix our problems before nature fixes them for us, but that's gambling, IMO.
The biggest problem with growth, IMO, is a moral and philosophical one reflected by its influence on our culture. People talk about growth and progress as being some sort of universally good thing. cough AynRandobjectivism cough Growth needs to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. The problem with growth and progress being an end in itself is that we cannot have a conversation about what we're growing into or why we're even bothering to grow in the first place.


You're talking about economic growth. I don't see the planet Earth being a limit like you're describing. That's more of a close-minded assumption. We've always been able to invent and innovate with the opportunity. Putting a limit on that, is denying ourselves that opportunity. Surely a 100 years ago, people never envisioned our present world. And a 100 years from now, I hope people can say the same about us.

The problem with fractional reserve systems using fiat currency is that it's fiat. Even if you could match inflation with economic growth (which you can't), you would still have an elite class collecting interest from loans of magically created cash.

>> ^aurens:

You envision a world in which people take responsibility for their fellow citizens because they're compelled to do so by the government.
...
One (yours) is a world that places little emphasis on the moral (and social and cultural) development of the individual.

Not at all. I'm asking people to sit down, and decide together to set up some fair and equal structure for identifying and clarifying our responsibilities to one another, and create an incentive structure to help us make sure we are all living up to the commitments morality demands of us.

You (and Paul) want to paint that as something it's not.

>> ^aurens:

Ron Paul envisions a world in which people take responsibility for their fellow citizens because they're driven by their own moral imperative.
..
The other (Ron Paul's) is a world that grants the individual more freedom and, yes, more responsibility.

Right, and if they don't feel like taking responsibility for their fellow citizens, they don't have to. It's your property after all, and you're free to do with it as you wish. People can try to persuade you to voluntarily take on responsibility for others, but if you want to ignore them, we'll make sure your right to ignore that responsibility is defended, with violence if necessary.

I don't really see much promotion of altruism in that.

>> ^aurens:
Before you condemn me for living in a fantasy world, I refer you to my comment above: "The hard part, though, and one of the biggest hurdles that Ron Paul supporters face, is to determine, honestly, whether or not we've advanced enough as a society to handle the responsibilities that his vision entails."

And my original response to that was: "To me it seems pretty naive to think that world is the world we live in, though. It seems even worse to say that it would be the world we lived in if only we went back to our 19th century economic policies.

I too want a world where government is no longer necessary. I just don't see humanity ever getting to the point where we're all perfect moral creatures. I certainly don't see Paul's insistence that "freedom" means freedom from responsibility for anyone but yourself as being a step towards that goal."

A comment which you dismissed as being a "fallacy" that stems from my "misunderstanding" that Paul's policy prescriptions stem from his naive and unrealistic view of humanity.

Me, I give Paul the benefit of the doubt -- I think he knows that this "everyone will take care of each other" thing is a load of bull, so I don't really factor it into my criticism of him.

It's certainly not aiding his case as far as I'm concerned, and it's definitely no answer to my criticism of his political message.

>> ^aurens:

Somewhat tangentially, have you perchance read anything by Peter Singer, maybe One World or "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"? I find it odd that these sorts of debates center so provincially on the United States without acknowledging the moral responsibility we have for people who are far less fortunate than even the most underprivileged Americans.


I haven't read Singer, but I agree with you that we are almost always provincial in these conversations.

But I sorta feel like solving these sorts of issues at the local level is a prerequisite to solving them on a global level. People who aren't ready to accept responsibility for their neighbors probably aren't ready to even start thinking about taking responsibility for humanity as a whole.

Is Ron Paul a philanthropist who goes around promoting everyone contribute more to charitable causes?

I can't speak for anyone else, but he's certainly convinced me to contribute more to certain charitable causes.


Further, he makes it clear that "freedom" means you should not have to contribute anything to anyone who isn't you if you don't feel like it, even if it means letting someone else die.

You envision a world in which people take responsibility for their fellow citizens because they're compelled to do so by the government. Ron Paul envisions a world in which people take responsibility for their fellow citizens because they're driven by their own moral imperative. One (yours) is a world that places little emphasis on the moral (and social and cultural) development of the individual. The other (Ron Paul's) is a world that grants the individual more freedom and, yes, more responsibility.

Before you condemn me for living in a fantasy world, I refer you to my comment above: "The hard part, though, and one of the biggest hurdles that Ron Paul supporters face, is to determine, honestly, whether or not we've advanced enough as a society to handle the responsibilities that his vision entails."

Somewhat tangentially, have you perchance read anything by Peter Singer, maybe One World or "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"? I find it odd that these sorts of debates center so provincially on the United States without acknowledging the moral responsibility we have for people who are far less fortunate than even the most underprivileged Americans.
>> ^NetRunner:
I'm not talking about what Ron Paul believes or says he's doing, I'm talking about what he's actually out there fighting to make happen ...

>> ^aurens:

The problem with tweezing out individual strands of Ron Paul's convictions and considering them out of context, as this fellow did, is that it divorces them from the social and cultural changes that must necessarily accompany them.

Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction.

>> ^aurens:
It's true (and Ron Paul would concede the point, I think): asking "our neighbors, our friends, our churches" (as he said in the latest debate) to assume responsibility for the health care of individuals without the means to pay for it

That is what I'm for.

It's called national health care. It's a social contract, that specifically lays out everyone's responsibilities and guarantees. To work out the details, we talk to one another, and try to hammer out an agreement that the majority can agree to.

Paul would call me lots of nasty names for wanting to formalize that arrangement into an enforceable contract, though.

He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself.

>> ^aurens:
To me, there's nothing more hopeful or more heartening than the world that Ron Paul envisions.

To me it seems pretty naive to think that world is the world we live in, though. It seems even worse to say that it would be the world we lived in if only we went back to our 19th century economic policies.

I too want a world where government is no longer necessary. I just don't see humanity ever getting to the point where we're all perfect moral creatures. I certainly don't see Paul's insistence that "freedom" means freedom from responsibility for anyone but yourself as being a step towards that goal.

That. Was. Fucking. Great.

I would never have been able to articulate that even if I tried. But let me ask this--isn't gross hyperbole what Fox News does daily? And yet they are called out daily? To do anything besides that here is hypocritical. "Oh, but they know the omissions they make are lies." And this guy doesn't?

I wish we could promote comments... I would here.

>> ^aurens:

"If it was up to Ron Paul, Mr. Snyder would have died ... in a church. On the floor of the church. I suspect it would have been significantly more painful than dying in a hospital for two months."
A lie? Yes, in a way. But probably better categorized as gross hyperbole.
The problem with tweezing out individual strands of Ron Paul's convictions and considering them out of context, as this fellow did, is that it divorces them from the social and cultural changes that must necessarily accompany them.
Ron Paul envisions a completely different form of government, and by extension, a completely different form of society. It's true (and Ron Paul would concede the point, I think): asking "our neighbors, our friends, our churches" (as he said in the latest debate) to assume responsibility for the health care of individuals without the means to pay for it would not work unless people became less accustomed to the government handling so many facets of their personal lives. As with many of his positions, his ideas about health care would necessitate a more informed body of citizens, a more socially conscious society, and more empathetic neighbors.
To me, there's nothing more hopeful or more heartening than the world that Ron Paul envisions. The hard part, though, and one of the biggest hurdles that Ron Paul supporters face, is to determine, honestly, whether or not we've advanced enough as a society to handle the responsibilities that his vision entails.
In any event, speaking of lies of omission, why not take the opportunity to remind everyone of one of the greatest scenes in the history of television: http://videosift.com/video/The-First-Duty.>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
lies through omission, a lot of omission.

Took that channel off. You wanna slap lies on it, at least articulate what the lie is.
Was there a salient, knowable detail he left out that would have repudiated what he said? If so, what was it? And do you have a source to back it up?
Maybe what you're looking for is controversy?

"If it was up to Ron Paul, Mr. Snyder would have died ... in a church. On the floor of the church. I suspect it would have been significantly more painful than dying in a hospital for two months."

A lie? Yes, in a way. But probably better categorized as gross hyperbole.

The problem with tweezing out individual strands of Ron Paul's convictions and considering them out of context, as this fellow did, is that it divorces them from the social and cultural changes that must necessarily accompany them.

Ron Paul envisions a completely different form of government, and by extension, a completely different form of society. It's true (and Ron Paul would concede the point, I think): asking "our neighbors, our friends, our churches" (as he said in the latest debate) to assume responsibility for the health care of individuals without the means to pay for it would not work unless people became less accustomed to the government handling so many facets of their personal lives. As with many of his positions, his ideas about health care would necessitate a more informed body of citizens, a more socially conscious society, and more empathetic neighbors.

To me, there's nothing more hopeful or more heartening than the world that Ron Paul envisions. The hard part, though, and one of the biggest hurdles that Ron Paul supporters face, is to determine, honestly, whether or not we've advanced enough as a society to handle the responsibilities that his vision entails.

In any event, speaking of lies of omission, why not take the opportunity to remind everyone of one of the greatest scenes in the history of television: http://videosift.com/video/The-First-Duty.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
lies through omission, a lot of omission.

Took that channel off. You wanna slap lies on it, at least articulate what the lie is.
Was there a salient, knowable detail he left out that would have repudiated what he said? If so, what was it? And do you have a source to back it up?
Maybe what you're looking for is controversy?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.
Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.
So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.
Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...


No I'm not, I'm questioning why they felt had to lie about this. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth, or even try to think you know what motivates me please.

So, if you think that collaborating to bend the truth to deceive and trick the public to achieve a common goal is not a conspiracy I suggest you read up on the definition of what a conspiracy is. Just because I use the word "conspiracy" does not mean I'm referring to some wild, far fetched and unbelievable scenario. That's not always what a conspiracy is, that's what the general public has come to think of what a conspiracy is due to people like you that apply the most extreme definition to the word. Just like a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft. It's that due to society, and per-conceived notions, most people automatically think of alien space ships when someone refers to seeing a UFO.

Sorry, you're smug little, "I know all the facts, and you are delusional" act is a joke. Yeah, you are far more superior to us "conspiracy nuts".

Oh, where did I say anything about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden or planting explosives in the towers? Why is it that once someone talks about a conspiracy they are automatically "crazy"? Not all of us believe what the fringe is trying to sell, my friend. But we also don't believe what is being force fed down our throats either.

>> ^Duckman33:

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.


Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.

Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.

So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.

Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”

Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”

I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.

Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

>> ^lantern53:

There is far more evidence that God exists than that God does not exist.
Study near-death experiences.


Yes, more feeding of the troll. Still after studying near death experiences (NDS's) here's what I think:

For obvious reasons, people who experience NDE's tend to "envision" their own religious figures. For example, Africans don't "envision" Jesus any more than Americans "envision" Zeus. So does this prove all religions exist independently? Or do the shared similarities in the NDE's of people from different religions suggest they are all inherently the same? Another interesting tidbit I picked up while studying: Agnostics/Atheists who have NDE's do often become more spiritual; however, religious folks who come close to death and do NOT have NDE's can actually become LESS spiritual over time.