Sounds pretty much like a justification for not looking at this crap objectively.
"...who has dedicated his life protecting others"
What would happen if he said no? What would happen if he said, what I do is wrong? What we do as a nation in other countries is wrong. What if the roles of me and my enemy were switched? Why do we meddle in their affairs and dont learn from history that has hundreds of times proven that something like that will only make things worse?
He would lose everything. His job, money, everything he ever thought he could do and probably also lose his family. He would be called a traitor, a pussy by his friends and society and whatnot.
Thats why its only about protecting oneself. Ignorance is the strongest weapon for people like him. Talk to people like him about politics. They dont understand whats going on, and they also dont want to understand, because who would want to be proven wrong with everything they did and believed in all of their life? Your whole life a lie? Your lifes works despicable and youre just a tool for corrupt politicians? They are conditioned, indoctrinated. Sad, but still dangerous as the last decades have shown so well. They are not at fault, they are the victims of politics. But they also support those politics because they dont understand whats really going on. A vicious circle.

In response to some of his questions at the end, I think a safe start would be to switch to alternative energy sources as a means to improve national security. That answers the question of why to do it. Lessening dependency on foreign oil would decrease being seen as meddlers in foreign lands or intentional meddling as I believe to be the case. In fact, I think we're already seeing this as the price of oil is decreasing. A side effect is that supply may simply shift to say China. If improvements in alternative energy accelerate the examples could be shared world wide. Sadly we'd be so much farther along had Jimmy Carters course not been reversed by reagan.

Note: All of this is speaking from the mindset of a U.S. citizen although I think it would also be true for many other nations.

They talk and talk and talk, but can't provide any specific charges. Even Boehner's "lawsuit" was just....rambling with no actual specific charges.

Every time you hear nutcases talking about impeachment it's the same thing, lots of rhetoric, nothing specific, nothing that would ever hold up in a court of law. They're just being a good trained parrot.

you want to whine about the whole "lie" about keeping your doctor nonsense. Prove it...prove to me that Obama is some mustache-twirling villain that deliberately intended to deceive us and he would have gotten away were it not for those meddling Republicans. Stop treating life like it's some sort of 1980s cartoon.

Even if you could prove it..using the example of Bill Clinton deliberately lying about getting a blowjob. We then go back to the "is this really worth impeaching him over?" I believe there was a poll done at some point that supports the idea that the public wants their president to be a good liar. So make up your mind, do you want a liar or don't you?

And it's just never going to succeed and it would make the Republicans look worse than they are already. The public as a whole blame republicans for the gov't shutdown. An impeachment would be a absolute waste of time and money and for the Republicans who claim to be about fiscal conservatism, please explain to me the return on investment for this endeavor? Numerous people have argued that an impeachment would actually raise Obama's approval numbers. It's just lose lose for the republicans.

And again, we go back to the "why do we care what Quitter Palin think again?" argument.

The death of the republican party continues. I continue to wait patiently for moderate Republicans to retake their party.

> "[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that
> does not match my perception of reality"

Well, far be it from me to try to introduce you to some basic epistemologies to which you may not be familiar: like rationalism, deduction, etc, in order to move you away from "authority" as the only path to knowledge you seem to use. Unfortunately, however, this "authority" method is inappropriate to the study of economics.

> "So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here,
> ever."

Keynes and Hayek were at it for a while. It's all in the two hip-hop videos.

> "It's utterly pointless."

Yes. There is nothing new not covered by Keynes vs. Hayek.

> "Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. "

Bad thymology (my interpretation).

> "He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand.
> The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates
> into demand."

I see. So, by this logic, any making of money is, in itself, a "weakening" of society. Unless I'm a socialist, like David Simon, then I cannot make money without also "weakening" society.

> "But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was
> probably hogwash to you."

Yes, at best hogwash. Alas, I've no interest in going into this with you, especially since you've no have interest in actually looking at it. Had you any interest at all -- or studied the subject beyond deferring to the "authority" method of epistemology -- you could at least provide me with a concise explanation as to why you think the Austrian/Misean economic position falters. Rather than thinking for yourself, however, you dismiss it as "wrong," "right-wing," or "pointless" to debate or go into. "Here Be Monsters, period."

The Keynes/Hayek debates have the similar tones, with Keynes simply ignoring all of Hayek's points, evasions, and going off into something else. You clearly agree with the Keynesian approach/theory, which likely means you cannot really explain anything except through unfounded claims, that are "pointless" to argue, debate, or rationally defend.

As I have said before, one cannot have this sort of intellectual relationship with those either unwilling or unable to grasp basic economic principles, like for example those clearly explained by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." There's simply no common language through which to communicate. Confronted with these kinds of beliefs, one can either try to educate (but only those who ask for it, since attempting to educate those who do not want to be educated will likely fail, as any public school teacher can tell you) or one can pull out the snake oil and the cash register. The third option involves ignoring such ignorance altogether, and use what one knows for one's own financial and life benefit in ways that don't involve such people in the first place.

There are so many errors in the Keynesian 'demand' theory of economics (you can find much on that if you want to read up on it), but Keynesians tend to avoid any real debates. You're coming from the Keynesian fallacy of saving money as being bad for the economy (because spending it all/consumerism is supposedly what gets the economy going). And the even more absurd fallacy which presupposes (with no proof of it at all) that rich people keep most of their wealth stored somewhere outside of circulation. When in reality, rich people only save some and the richer they are the more they spend/invest. Of course, when the economy seem fragile, due to central banks meddling, bubbles, etc., investors get nervous and don't invest as much a they otherwise would. When they don't invest, it shrinks supply of things people would want to spend on. Demand does nothing, it doesn't exist, if there is nothing to supply that people want to buy.

In fact, I am starting to think that central bankers are not really Keynesian at all, in the sense that they don't really believe their own bullshit. They know better but also know how to exploit their positions as central bankers, making folks like @radx buy into it, the snake oil. For example, he may not care for gold, but bankers do. Whatever they say against it, folks will still buy it, both for themselves and the banks they run. And as @radx rightly says, he's a human. And apparently he can sell his 'charm' if push comes to shove.

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

ahh yes, the free market will solve all. The market that has never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever been free and even the founder of capitalism argues that it needs to be regulated.

12 year olds would still be working in sweatshops were it not for regulation. Slavery would still be legal were it not for that pesky meddling gov't

I see that as part of the problem. There is an almost cult-like worship of the military and the people who have served. (oh no VoodooV is anti-military! lynch him!).

They bring a vast amount of experience and insight to the table? Of course they do, but are they the end all be all? Are they fundamentally better/superior to people who haven't been in the military? Not so much. If you think they are Then you seem to have trouble with that pesky concept of equality.

There is a fundamental pressure every US elected official ever has experienced to not "appear weak" That can often lead to unnecessary chest thumping and saber rattling as history has shown time and time again can get us into trouble. But it is a reality that you have better odds at winning an elected office if you served than if you hadn't and people need to fundamentally re-consider that line of reasoning.

Quite honestly, McCain is part of the old guard, the old way of thinking. We can't afford to think like that any longer. As technology continues racing ahead, The world becomes an increasingly small place and we have GOT to figure out how to get along with each other. Of course there will always be a need to have/show military force, but it's a scalpel, not a blunt object.

To me it seems like McCain is just becoming more and more incompetent. If there is any...ANY grain of truth to how they failed to vet Sarah Palin because they both thought they other guy did the vetting, that is just this huge failure and that McCain simply didn't care or pay attention to what was going on in his campaign and to me that speaks volumes as to how he would have led the country.

Time for retirement John.

But here is where I defend him. He wouldn't be where he is at right now if people didn't choose him. Whether I agree with him or not, He is doing what he thinks is best because the voters put him there. There is no mustache twirling villain. The world doesn't work that way. @arekin is absolutely right. There is a massive compulsion that whenever a vote doesn't go someone's way, then obviously the bad guys won and that everything they do will be evil, all the absurd arguments like "he's not MY president," or "I don't think he's a citizen," or "he's not a REAL American" are just lies people tell themselves to make them feel better. This isn't an episode of Scooby Do where if you solve the mystery you get to pull the mask off and the villain says "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"

Talk is cheap Mr. Speaker, if you want to be in power so you can "arrest the gov't" put your money where your mouth is, STFU and run for office then asshole. Convince the people you're right and lets see if you can do any better. That's how the system works! If there is one negative to the Internet is the massive amount of armchair quarterbacking the Internet breeds. Countless millions of people who seem to honestly think they would do a better job. Well hey, you know what? I'm sure there are some of you out there that COULD do a better job, but if you're not going to throw your hat into the ring and walk the walk then I've got no time for your rambling and conspiracy theories.

McCain's response to his speech was fucking perfect. Not only did he call him out to run for office, He pointed out that he IS governing with the consent of the people. So if you don't like it, do a little community organizing of your own and convince the people to demand better. Oh shit, that takes effort! fuck it then!

No one really takes power. The people will always be strong enough (with or without guns) to thwart anyone who takes power. In reality, power is given. There are countless mechanisms of peaceful change in our gov't. Use them or shut the fuck up.

IMO, the single best thing we could do for gov't is to COMPLETELY REMOVE ALL PRIVATE MONEY FROM OUR ELECTIONS AND ABOLISH LOBBYING. It's because of all the corporate influence in our gov't that we probably get into these shenanigans in the first place.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

Rwanda is what happens. Clinton is still riding the great approval ratings for his foreign policy, including his steadfast refusal to meddle in Rwanda throughout the duration of the genocide there.

And yes, the hypocrisy is bad, the horrific evil of America's own sociopaths like Kissinger is even worse. We just need to recognize the difference between turning Cambodia into a parking lot to prove to the Ruskies that we have 'resolve' and removing someone like Saddam from power.

I love how such a narrow clip provokes such wide-ranging discussion here on the Sift. I think the clip itself raises two central questions:
1) Is Islam - in this point in history - more dangerous a religious ideology than the others, and
2) Is such a question/comparison even relevant? Or perhaps "promotes Islamic hatred" as the douchebag facing Maher seems to think?

To 1), I've argued above that yes, it is. as for 2), raised mostly by the commenters here, I would have to say "no, but" to both. Religious (and non-religious) ideologies should be strongly and non-violently denounced whenever/wherever they do harm. In the US, for example, Christianity does way more harm (to women's/gay's/atheist's rights, to education, etc.) than Islam does, but neither excuses/diminishes the evil done by the other. The "but" would be for when people get accused of discrimination and "islamophobia" when calling out the evils of Islam.
The necessity of the second "but" is illustrated by @shinyblurry's comment: there is always the danger of right-wing and/or Christian fundamentalists taking criticism of Islam to be a defense/validation of their own strain of wrong/dangerous BS and/or racisms (to be fair, sb only exhibits the former). This is inevitable, and should not stop people from criticising/denouncing unethical ideologies, nor should it prompt amalgamation of "criticising Islam" with "hating the for'ners/ragheads/Muslims".

Beyond the subject of the video itself, the correlation between poor socio-politico-economico-etc. status and the adherence to extremes, a point well-made by @Babymech, @Yogi and others is an important factor in the higher numbers of "Islamist evil" worldwide, one that I am well aware of. There is no better way of turning whole populations to fundamentalist extremes (or at least worse ones than they had before; let's not fall into the "noble savage" fallacy) than by meddling with their politics and then bombing the hell out of them. The danger is to go to the extreme of excluding the very nature of those fundamentals from the picture, which is just as simplistic and false as is blaming them exclusively.

Moreover, I always shudder at the left-wing strain of argumentation which puts ALL the blame on the Western invaders, (edit: 19-20th c.) colonisation and co. This view relies heavily on the "noble savage" form of racism, which assumes that only "White people/Westerners/Judeo-Christians" can wreak political/social havoc in the lands of those poor, innocent "Brown people/Muslims" (those two often being conflated). Having lived in Africa for 5 years I have a knee-jerk reaction to this kind of self-centered guilt-tripping, which deprives the "Brown/Black people" of one aspect of human nature: the ability to be evil, to fuck themselves up without any help from the "West". They can, and they do.

This tangent may seem irrelevant here, but the reason I bring it up is because that it is this sentiment that is behind much of this "Islamophobe" name-calling in the US and Europe, and behind the difficulty many "Westerners" have in bare-facedly criticising Islam, when they often have no such difficulty with their "home"-religion, Christianity.

@aaronfr raises the problem of how to go about denouncing an unethical set of beliefs, and gives several good examples of how not to (it is noteworthy that the only example of violent action is one taken by other religious people; I have yet to hear of atheists using anything other than words and pictures to make their point). Hitchens’ endorsement of the Iraq war lowered my esteem for him greatly (somewhat saved by the fact that his stance on this was of no influence to anyone, contrary to his huge effort against the evils of religion), but it is noteworthy that he and Harris are the most criticised (and the least influential) when they hold such positions.
On the side of the religious, however, it is often the crazy fundies who are the loudest and, in certain areas (with the aid of socio-etc factors of course) the most influential. And they have, especially in the Quran and the life of M., a reliable and divine source of hate/violence-mongering.

As you say, peace and prosperity are some of the best deterrents to religious extremism and unethical behaviour (but not solely; cf: the US, Saudi Arabia and co.) This does not render unnecessary denouncing the unethical nature of Islam, Christianity, etc. As noted above, the negative effects of religion are still felt in relatively peaceful and prosperous nations today (in France, for example, homophobes of Christian, Muslim and possibly Jewish faiths are causing a significant rise in homophobic violence ever since the gay-marriage hearings).

So long as the distinction between "Islam(/religious ideology)" and "Muslim(/person)" remains clear, we should be free to criticise and denounce the former to our hearts content. (Note how "Islamophobia" shits all over that distinction; one of the many reasons that term should never be uttered unironically).

_{My apologies for the dissertation-length comment}

@vaire2ube and who do you think sticks an insurance company between you and your doctor? It shouldn't be that way!

If the market were allowed to push prices down, people would resort less to insurance and pay for medical services through other means. You can thank the collusion of government and big business for keeping prices high and making health insurance such a big part of healthcare. Now it's even mandatory. They're forcing you to pay for their costly shitty services.

Don't think government has your best interests at heart when they "extend health care benefits" or whatnot, it's just more meddling engendered to stifle the market, to keep competition out, and help big business with whatever makes them more money.

So, you're blaming BIG BUSINESS. I'm blaming BIG BUSINESS + GOVERNMENT. You can't get rid of big businesses, you shouldn't. You can, however, relieve their unfair entrenchment in the market, by getting GOVERNMENT out of the equation.

How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being. The video I provided is very good and it chronicles the history of deep time, as well as the science behind it, in exacting detail using the methodology of geologists. You could watch 10 minutes of it, and if you decided you didn't like it, you could turn it off.

As far as the paradigm shift goes, here is a quote from the father of uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

From a lecture in King’s College London in 1832

I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said that ‘for the sake of revelation as well as of science—of truth in every form—the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see. He completely excluded the testimony of scripture apriori before he even began. That is the beginning of why there was a shift in geology as the intelligentsia embraced his theories and began to teach it at Universities. There was no spectacular confirmation of any of this; in fact the evidence he gave about Niagra Falls to supprt his theory has been completely falsified.

>> ^CaptainObvious:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...
The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....
...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...
...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....
Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_
Iran
Not all countries are built the same.
"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?


You are conflating two entirely different issues, and doing a bad job of it to boot...

Iran has done the same things for years, but the only thing that get's the US and Israel wet is when nuclear is involved. Don't kid yourself for a second in believing either country would go in to save the people from a dictatorial regime, all they care about is someone else dealing themselves in to the nuclear game. I suspect you know this very well of course but it makes a much more compelling case to break out the violins and claim the action is humanitarian.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?


"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....

...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...

...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Not all countries are built the same.

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

>> ^CaptainObvious:

Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.


What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |

Or, ya know, the right of self determination?