I think by 'teach students to think,' Chomsky means teach them to be on the far left of the political bell curve. I went to a high school that loved Chomsky, Zinn, etc., and was generally 'by liberals and for liberals,' and that kind of thing is always going to be obnoxious if you're not born with liberal neurogenetics.

Most members of the liberal community won't believe in genetics for another couple of decades, so until that happens, they'll continue to tolerate no dissent from kids born outside liberals' neurogenetic cluster.

Better to let kids find the path that's right for them, rather than try to strong-arm them.

>> ^quantumushroom:
What's great about this is Obamalinsky is still hiding his real college papers.
If they weren't likely filled with the exact same anti-American, pro-commie sentiments as the fake, they'd already be public domain.
What's the fraudsident hiding?


What would it matter if they were public? it wouldnt matter if they were a long gigantic salute to the Reagan/bush doctrine to people like you because YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT FACTS ANYWAY. To people like Hannity, Beck,Limbaugh or O'Reilly, it costs nothing to make shit up and believe it yourself, only to be proven wrong by the facts, and then CONTINUE to believe in your made up shit. This quote by Limbaugh captures the essence of such attitude: Obama was indoctrinated in a Madrassa, he is a muslim, he was not born in the US, he is a communist, he wants to kill the elderly, he hates america and the constitution, he is a liar, and so on and so on, All of the above have again and again been shown to be false, yet you still parrot this bullshit as if it was obviously true. Its not fucking true. stop being such a fucking boneheaded moron, pull your head out of your ass, and READ THE FUCKING FACTS. Want to slam Obama for his policies, behaviour, ideology or ideas, fine, thats completely fair, but get the fucking facts straight, stop making shit up and check your facts, and even us liberals will listen to you, I promise.

>> ^Lolthien:You are honestly suggesting talent and skill are unrelated?


No, but unless someone is born with savant-like abilities, talent is a small piece of the equation. Most artists are not born being able to do what they do. They learn like everyone else.

"...exists exclusively in the minds of extremists who oppose conservative stances."

So, anyone who opposes the conservative stance, MUST be an extremists? Wow, what logic you have Winston...

"It is perfectly rational to support punishment and justice of guilty adults..."

So if that's true, your FOR Mr. Bush being executed for lying to the USA over any number of issues that effected us from 2000-2008? Like those WMD's in Iraq? I doubt it, Winston. Your for punishment and justice, so long as the guilty parties are liberal and/or Democrat.

"...while defending the right to life for the most innocent of all humanity."

Yes, under 'conservative values', we created two major war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Put tens of thousands to the sword, including those whom carried child not born. All in the name of 'Defending Truth, Justice, and the American way!" You call wars (yes, plural) 'defending the right to life'?

"The only so-called 'contradiction' exists when individuals look at the issues only through the simplistic, biased filter of exclusively left-wing groupthink."

Oh yes, because RIGHT-wing groupthink can not exist in reality. I think the video above, Winston, blows your arguement out of the water.

"Over 58% of the country opposes..."

Where does this statistic come from exactly? Yes, please publish the source. Otherwise, I will publish the correct percentage of the USA, who opposes the current president. Not surprisingly, this number, just happens to be the same as those who voted for Mr. McCain in 2008. Coindence?

"It is not Limbaugh/Beck that are 'driving' the country. Limbaugh and Beck are merely echoing what the majority of Americans are feeling."

Fortunately for the MAJORITY of Americans (since the majority voted for the DEMOCRAT, and Democrats won, a good portion of the House and Senate), you are quite incorrect, Winston. Beck/Limbaugh simply dumb-down the information to small bites to conservatives. This is due, mostly in part that most conversatives really do not have much of a solid education on topics like 'health care', 'economics', 'law', 'biotechnology', 'energy conservation', and 'wisdom'. They do not really think their audience could handle a serious conversation on any of these topics (and they are right...sadly). The conservative talk shows matra is to use small sound bites, rather then lengthy concepts that require someone to ponder on the merits. Go listen to NPR when it talks about an arguement currently effecting the USA. The average conservative would switch the channel, as the arguements 'for' and 'against', quickly out paced their educational level (note: this has nothing to do with one's education level, i.e. bacholers of Science, Masters, or Ph.D.).

Yes, Mr. Obama, does not speak to conservatives this way. He believes, through being intelligent, educated, and patient, he can reach their more noble side. But as evidence has shown us, conservatives really dont have a noble side (as we saw with town hall meeting this summer). He speaks in a way, most conservatives can not understand on their own (with exceptions, like, well, you). Conservative talk shows, Mr. Beck, Mr. Hannity, and Mr. Limbaugh, then take what the president said, change it in to something vile, and then, dumb down the information to dispense to conservatives.

It REALLY happens that way, Winston. I hate to be the one, to tell you, the God's honest truth. And yes, there are liberals, whom are quite fantical and ignore sound wisdom, to promote the president's concepts and goals without thought. Fortunately, they are a smaller number, then there are 'thinking' and 'wise' conservatives in the USA.

The first step to determining if any god exists is to clearly define this god. In these times, when someone says 'god', they're probably talking about something which pretty closely resembles the Christian God, but not necessarily.

Some of the defining characteristics of the Christian God I was raised with are:
- Benevolent
- Omnipotent
- Omniscient

(abbreviated "BO&O" below)

There are others, of course, but I can comfortably say that any god definition which includes these 3 is immediately invalid due to the reality in which we live. If God doesn't have the power to end suffering, then he is not omnipotent. If God doesn't have the will or desire to end suffering, then he is not benevolent. If God isn't aware of suffering, then he is not omniscient. It's an old argument, but the only rebuttal I've ever heard is "God works in mysterious ways."

This doesn't have to be taken to the extreme of saying God would create a utopia for us if he was BO&O. The argument can be made that the trials and tribulations of life make us better people. I'm not talking about trials and tribulations, I'm talking about starvation, disease & famine.

Take away any of those 3 attributes and you've got yourself a non-conflicting god definition, at least for this particular problem.

MINK used to rattle on about how retarded everyone was when... actually it didn't matter what the topic was... but in the case of (a)theism, he would generally state that "God is everything" and so all arguments against were futile. Without knowing exactly what he meant by that, no argument can really be made. If he literally meant that God is the sum of all matter then, yeah, I'd have to conclude that God does exist, but that would seem to have zero value scientifically, morally or philosophically.

Speaking of philosophy, questions have been posed as to why a BO&O God would create existence, the universe, life, etc. Any answer is only opinion, but it's worth contemplating.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
If a god or this "something" did exist, why not God? It couldn't possibly be a personal being who interacts with us? If this were possible, why not the Christian God (not as he is defined by modern Christianity, but as Jesus described him)? Rather, it must necessarily be something that is impersonal, not conscious, or takes no interest in us? I don't know why you so positively reject that definition of the "something."

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
The reason that we have need for a Savior is because we have been given agency and will make mistakes. This agency provides us an opportunity to learn and grow because we are free to make mistakes. (We lived with God before we were given mortal bodies, but we were like children, and God wished to see us progress. This life is a stage in our progression.) God provided a Savior so that we could return to live with him, because no unclean thing can dwell in his presence.

How does sending his son to be brutally executed better equip God to forgive us? Even if it does, how is that a moral thing to do? Did everyone that died before 1AD go to hell? If not, then what made Jesus necessary later?

We are not born on the path to hell. We are born innocent and perfect and are not held accountable for Adam's sin. Only our own. God does require something of us. I'm sorry if you find that offensive. I believe that the faith, repentance, good works, and morality he requires not only lead us back to him, but they make us happy in this life. If God provided proof of his existence, faith and sacrifice (which test us and make us better) would not be necessary.

Does this not seem the slightest bit like jumping through hoops? I agree, on one hand, that we grow as people as we face adversity and obstacles. We can grow as people without faith and worship. Why does God want us to pass a test that he won't tell us we're taking, let alone what the rules are?

Actually, the President would not have to go to the actual court house. Given that he's a sitting president, unless, its a capital crime or a federal issue (i.e. treason), he would not have to go to court. Besides which, if your going to argue someone was not born in a state, when they show documented proof, why do it in another state? He was born in Hawaii, not California.

This lady has only this single card to play, and she is simply trying to squeeze as much money out of it. The guy that interview her, most likely had the choice: interview her, or talk about soap scum algee molds in some guy's sink.

Wow. Sounds too good to be true! Here's how to order! Print money out of thin air to pay for everyone's health care. When the currency is worthless, who cares? Our grandchildren will just have to figure out a new plan for themselves. Fuck them. They're not born yet, and we're a bunch of myopic selfish pricks.

No doubt we need health care reform, but this sounds like utopian wand waving to me. If the idea is to have government force insurance companies to give policies to people with preexisting conditions, then it's no longer insurance, because they're not "insuring" your health, we're forcing them to pay for your health care plan. That means premiums for everyone will skyrocket, because it will be a health spending account versus insurance. If by some magical reason they don't raise premiums, then government is subsidizing it which means we still pay, but worse we mortgage our grandchildren with debt. Selfish.

Also, whether someone is unemployed or not shouldn't matter when purchasing "insurance", because it's silly to think employers must offer health insurance. Should they offer car insurance next? What about fire insurance? Why is it the employer's responsibility to offer that? It's all silly. But instead of addressing this problem directly and bringing about true reform, it feels as if the Dems and Repubs want to place band-aid fixes on everything. This is all utopian nonsense that simply will not work.

Quantum Mushroom.. you ask for proof that doesn't exist, and was not in use in Hawaii at the time of his birth.

Perhaps we should have voted for McCain who was born in Panama?

I'm pretty sure QM is either drunk when he posts, or is a troll.. or both. He keeps referring to Obama as 'The One' or 'The Messiah' as if anyone has seriously called him that other than people trying to ridicule his supporters.

It's a strawman hoping to draw out knee-jerk responses because it is obvious he will never be satisfied, because if suddenly the proof he asks for is given, it will have been completely falsified and forged, according to him and his ilk.

Also, Obama's birth was reported in newspapers from the time and in doctor's records of the time. This is a non-issue, and in fact, Obama's birth has stronger evidence in the public forum than any other politician ever. Hell, did we see Dubya's birth certificate? I heard he was born in the bin Laden's family harem and was raised on a diet of crude oil and cow leather.

The only proof I will accept is a valid and proven authentic note from the bin Laden family dated on GWB's date of birth saying exactly this: "George W. Bush was not born here today, and we did not raise him to take over countries for their oil."

Anything else is a vast conspiracy.

You didn't see so much smoke blown around McCain on this subject and it's widely known he was not born in the United States. Nobody even claims otherwise.

>> ^westy:
What the real argument should be is WHY THE HELL DOSE IT MATTER WHAT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION SUM ONE WAS BORN .
OH HANG ON IS IT BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE RACIST AND XENOPHOBIC ?


Are you sincerely asking? It's part of the constitution. Were the writers of the constitution racist? Of course! The constitution directly codified slavery (3/5ths compromise, restriction from banning the import of slaves until 1808).

But the "natural born citizen" term in the constitution is not born out of racism. Here is the likely history of how it came to be, from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

"July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention."

Fuck that... I say the burden of proof rests on you, QM. Obama is already President, and I don't think that there's much that can bed done to reverse his (landslide) win. Have at 'er.

>> ^quantumushroom:
A "birther" is someone who believes that Obama was not born in the United States. They reason that since he is not a "natural" citizen, he cannot be legally president.
Belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen stem from FACTS:
Obama has never been able (or willing) to produce a valid United States birth certificate.
The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" is NOT a birth certificate.
No Hawaiian doctor has stepped forward to claim he witnessed the birth.
"Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya.
"Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version, under the subject “Barack Obama,” states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version, under the subject “Queens Hospital,” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital."
Here's the wikipedia summary of Philip J. Berg, a Democrat who filed the lawsuit challenging Obama's qualifications to be President.
(Berg)...is a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and an activist attorney who brought a RICO lawsuit charging president George W. Bush and 154 others with complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and another suit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become President of the United States.
The burden of proof in this matter is on Team Obama.

A "birther" is someone who believes that Obama was not born in the United States. They reason that since he is not a "natural" citizen, he cannot be legally president.

Belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen stem from FACTS:

* Obama has never been able (or willing) to produce a valid United States birth certificate.
* The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" is NOT a birth certificate.
* No Hawaiian doctor has stepped forward to claim he witnessed the birth.
* "Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya.
* "Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version, under the subject “Barack Obama,” states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version, under the subject “Queens Hospital,” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital."

Here's the wikipedia summary of Philip J. Berg, a Democrat who filed the lawsuit challenging Obama's qualifications to be President.

(Berg)...is a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and an activist attorney who brought a RICO lawsuit charging president George W. Bush and 154 others with complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and another suit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become President of the United States.

The burden of proof in this matter is on Team Obama.

A "birther" is someone who believes that Obama was not born in the United States. They reason that since he is not a "natural" citizen, he cannot be legally president.

>> ^jerryku:
.


Honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about here, as much of it seems to bear nothing even close to what I wrote. Maybe you didn’t read my post, or perhaps I didn’t make my self clear. Let me try again. The idea that democracy and science don’t work well together is simply not born out by the existing facts. If democracy and science don’t work well together, then how do we account for the disproportionate number of patents awarded to scientists working in democratic societies, the overwhelming number of advances in science made in the last hundred plus years by Americans and/or people living here under a democratic system? You don’t see how science and democracies are compatible? Fine. I’m just pointing out that there is no evidence for this claim, if anything there is a wealth of proof showing the opposite.

I listed the “intellectuals/scientists of the past” simply to point out that these egghead elites have done great work and done tremendous good in raising America’s prestige the world over.

As far as “intellectuals/scientists of the past who would be pretty upset about modern day America's current situation.” Unless you are in possession of a flux capacitor, assigning the thoughts on present day situations to people that have long been dead and were the product of a far different time and environment is a foolish endeavor. (I will concede however that Thomas Jefferson would most likely be mortified to learn that thanks to science, and a science he helped pioneer, future generations uncovered his little secret regarding Sally Hemmings) I’m sure that some of the founding fathers did not want to give political power to the common man. But I suspect they may have been the same people that had no issue with owning slaves, or treating women as second class citizens, so what they thought then bears little relevance to what we have now.

As far as your claim that so many scientists were communists, your post listed only two. How does two translate to “so many” in a vocation that has millions the world over? Additionally, as the Communist Manifesto was published only 150 years ago, and men have been practicing science for centuries, the idea that “so many scientists of the past supported Communism” is to put it kindly, a little hard to swallow. Considering how much scientists and researchers depend on the free market system to fund their work, I would hazard to guess they would be more interested in living under that system than not.

In regards to “There's nothing about democracy that requires free speech, and free speech does not require democracy.” I really have no clue as to how this relates to anything I posted, or where you felt such a statement fit in to the overall argument.

Imstellar, you are calling "weak evidence" faith. A birth certificate is evidence. How strong is a matter of debate. It is a physical observeration you make when you see a birth certificate. And since birth certificates tend to be created at someone's birth (another physical observation), then seeing a birth certificate (in a typical context) implies someone was born. Faith would be believing someone was or was not born despite seeing any number or lack of birth certificates. Faith is explicitly believing for the sake of believing. As soon as reality influences your belief it is not faith.

Anyway, we have two models here of what happened. As scientists we simply have to see which model fits reality best - ie, which appears most likely.

So, what is more likely:

- The personal testimony was truthful, and
- He was able to get by checks going back into the country, and
- Was then able to circumvent registration and get a birth certificate saying he was born inside that hospital

OR

- The personal testimony was simply made-up or a misunderstanding


Come on, this is anecdotal evidence (the worst kind) against physical documentation. Of course you can't know 100% either way, but like in all of science, what is the likelihood of one compared to the other? What we have available is certainly not rigorous, but that just means we can't get that much closer to being certain, not that it's automatically 50/50 (a fallacy in its own, anyway).

Documents can be falsified but anecdotes are worthless.