So if Gretchen is the "independent" and the non-Doucy guy is the conservative does that make Doucy the liberal? I mean that would make it fair and balanced.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you might not be seeing this from my perspective. From my perspective, I know God exists, therefore, if you don't know God, it means that you haven't truly sought Him out. You've also spent many of your replies telling me all of the reasons why you don't seek Him out and aren't interested in seeking Him out, which lends credence to that theory. You say it's no fault of your own, but scripture says He gives everyone sufficient evidence, which people suppress, and in the end no one is going to have an excuses. I am not trying to offend you by saying that, I just believe scripture and my own experience.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

My position is if you do what scripture says, you will know God. That's always been my position.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

I don't know anything about you other than what you post on this website. I don't assume anything other than you're a person worthy of respect.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

There are 1000s of religions, most of them in antiquity. If God has revealed Himself to the world, do you think it is going to be through some obscure religion no one has ever heard of? Do you think He is only going to have a handful of adherants? All religions are not the same, and they don't make the same claims. For most of the believers on the planet, Jesus is the central question. Also, Judiasm is the oldest religion on the planet, and that is where Christianity comes from.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

Maybe you have, and maybe you are. However, we cannot examine the comments you made about mathematics without examining the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

I have put in some time as well, as thus far I find you addressing the last paragraph or line of my replies and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

It can be, especially because of the limitations of the medium.



>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

>> ^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.

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

>> ^NetRunner:

But again you're acting as though the existence of that implication injects some sort of falsehood into the mix.

Yes and no. It doesn't make any element of it false, but it makes part of it less than fully true. I'd propose this hypothetical assertion:
9/11 happened before the TSA was formed. There have been no successful terrorist attacks on the USA since the TSA was created.

Two statements. Both true. Yet I'd have a problem with anyone fluffing their resume with those two statements. Further explanation is needed to note that just because A and B are true, A doesn't imply B or vice-versa. Reading the fulltext of the Politifact page provides that explanation for their assessment, which I think is fair.

>> ^NetRunner:
Obama recounted the facts only. The fact that the facts themselves imply that Obama's policies might be partially behind the recovery doesn't make what he said "half true" or "mostly true", it was still just "true"

Shades of gray. I think that the evidence is in Obama's favor -- much moreso than in my hypothetical statement that implies that the TSA is 100% responsible for having prevented terrorism on US soil since 9/11. But in either case, I think that to know the truth as fully as possible, you need more information than any single assertion that the statements are "true" "mostly true" or "half true".

I'd even concede to Politifact altering their rating to "true" IF they were to maintain fulltext below that explains that such a rating excludes the implication that Obama's policies were largely or fully responsible for the recovery. If they did that, would it be an acceptable response from your point of view?

>> ^NetRunner:
As for the "fair and balanced" thing, I think that's really what's behind Politifact's follies. They're worried that if they don't ding Democrats roughly as often as Republicans, they'll be accused of being "biased" which would chip away at their credibility.

This is just my take on it, but I don't think that Politifact is keeping score and trying to get their digs in on both sides to avoid accusations of bias. I think there is a distinction to be made between them saying that a statement is "mostly true" or "half true" and accusing someone of lying. When they say that Obama's statements (or those of anyone else) were "mostly true", they don't mean to suggest that some part of it was false, just that they need to be supplemented with some additional information to fully appreciate. ie., Take this with a grain of salt.

>> ^NetRunner:
Instead what they've done is ruin their reputation in one fell swoop by letting concerns about their reputation bring them to the point where they're calling the truth "half true" in order to try to appear "fair and balanced".

I think that is just a bit overly dramatic -- no offense. Perhaps this ruined their reputation for you, but I don't think they deserve that reaction in general. I'm sure that they could make the same sort of assessments on statements from somebody of the Republican side -- say, taking credit for prosperity during the Reagan administration -- and it would elicit similar reactions from conservative readers ("Politifact has lost all credibility!", etc.).


By the way, just wanted to note here that I appreciate your point of view and have enjoyed considering this further. So while I'm basically sticking to my story and I think Maddow overreacted, I'm going to upvote the video (I didn't originally) on the basis of the strong and healthy discussion. Good sift and good support of your take on it in comments here.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

Arguments can be made for any of those ratings, and you're making a good one for "True" since the statements referenced in their own heading are limited to the 2 that are fully true. However, since they include Obama's previous 2 statments (implying that his policies were responsible) in their full explanation, I think that the revised rating of "Mostly True" is fine, and probably the best assessment. Much more "fair and balanced" than some other sources would tout themselves as being.


But again you're acting as though the existence of that implication injects some sort of falsehood into the mix.

Obama recounted the facts only. The fact that the facts themselves imply that Obama's policies might be partially behind the recovery doesn't make what he said "half true" or "mostly true", it was still just "true"

As for the "fair and balanced" thing, I think that's really what's behind Politifact's follies. They're worried that if they don't ding Democrats roughly as often as Republicans, they'll be accused of being "biased" which would chip away at their credibility.

Instead what they've done is ruin their reputation in one fell swoop by letting concerns about their reputation bring them to the point where they're calling the truth "half true" in order to try to appear "fair and balanced".

@NetRunner -
Thanks for the link to the Politifact page. I probably shouldn't have argued about it without actually reading that page, but I was mainly concerned with Maddow's reaction to it rather than the Politifact page itself.

Long story short, I think that whatever rating Politifact assigns to the statement (True / Mostly True / Half-True), it is going to be important in this case for them to have an asterisk with further explanation. Arguments can be made for any of those ratings, and you're making a good one for "True" since the statements referenced in their own heading are limited to the 2 that are fully true. However, since they include Obama's previous 2 statments (implying that his policies were responsible) in their full explanation, I think that the revised rating of "Mostly True" is fine, and probably the best assessment. Much more "fair and balanced" than some other sources would tout themselves as being.

>> ^dag:

Red house? I get it! Obama's a communist.
Communism is on the rise people. We have to stand strong against the red menace.
I wonder at what point in the 21st century communism will stop being the bogeyman? Talk about a dead horse. It's a failed ideology with heaps of stigma. Even communists don't call themselves communists anymore. >> ^quantumushroom:
Fox appears imbalanced because they're not 100% propagandists for the obama red house and taxocrat party, like the other guys.
>> ^dag:
North Korean journalism: Still more fair and balanced than Fox News.




Lol, I don't know what's more ridiculous, the 'red house' comment or being so lacking in a sense of humour that he feels he has to rush to the defense of Fox from humorous comment... \= |

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Red house? I get it! Obama's a communist.

Communism is on the rise people. We have to stand strong against the red menace.

I wonder at what point in the 21st century communism will stop being the bogeyman? Talk about a dead horse. It's a failed ideology with heaps of stigma. Even communists don't call themselves communists anymore. >> ^quantumushroom:

Fox appears imbalanced because they're not 100% propagandists for the obama red house and taxocrat party, like the other guys.
>> ^dag:
North Korean journalism: Still more fair and balanced than Fox News.

Fox appears imbalanced because they're not 100% propagandists for the obama red house and taxocrat party, like the other guys.

>> ^dag:

North Korean journalism: Still more fair and balanced than Fox News.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

North Korean journalism: Still more fair and balanced than Fox News.

I'm not usually a fan of his stuff either, he usually plays it like the GOP are the bad guys and overlooks the fact that while Democrats say better things, they continue (and escalate) the wars, the lobbying, the wealth extraction, the environmental destruction etc. He occasionally picks up on this, but pretty rarely it seems, which leads me to believe there's some agenda there. Also I'm against this 'fair and balanced' type of news/media, where for some reason, every debate must involve someone with their head buried so far in the corporate think tank they may as well just be a Frank Luntz manikin that repeats talking points on request.

Also, I don't really know why people feel the need to debate the motives of the Tea Party, they only came out with their signs because they were organised and funded by think tank GOP groups (tax exempt 501(c)(4)'s)/billionaire individuals/Fox News. So their motivations are irrelevant as they were literally coached and coerced into doing what they did.

"1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs."

The point is there are a small group of people that have a large amount of welth and are using that wealth to control the political and legal system and have basicly hijacked the democracy. That is what the 99% ers are protesting.

until You remove control from people who have a compleat conflict of interest then you cannot address the core aspect of job creation.
If these protests have the desired effect , the knock on result would be that government and industry can rationally approach things in a way that might work and would in the end result in a better quality of life for more people and most likely more jobs.

"2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, "

They blame fox news because it is a media outlet owned by the small % of super rich people and a part of there method of using wealth to control the nation. fox news is also entirely disingenuous and presents its self as a news station and fair and balanced when in fact it solely exists to push the agenda of the very rich in society.

They blame republicans more so than democrats because republican policy benefits the super rich more so than the democrats policy , having said that I think most people don't even see this as a republican or democrats issue the fact is both governments are largely as bad as each other. Fact is if you have enough money you can simply lobby things into existence evan if they are a detriment to the society at large.

"3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan"

there game plan and what they want is ridiculously clear and simple they want wealth to be more evenly spread and for policy and laws to be made based on what is good for the majority of people in the country not a select few that happen to be super wealthy.

The reason why they are having to protest and kick up a fuss how they are is because democracy is so fundimentaly broken and tilted towards wealth deciding things that unless you are rich or in a high up cooperate position you cannot have any influence to gain traction.







>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.
I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.
I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.
One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.
I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).
Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.
My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.
To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.