>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Here is the chart so far. It's hard to read because of all the names unfortunately, but you can manually take people off the chart if you like. I added a few inactive sifters from the last time this was posted - if you are one of these people and want to retake, let me know and I'll change it. I also added all of the American presidential candidates and Obama. I'll wait for a few more days for others to join, then I'll post.




http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?showform=&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-3.4%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-5.6%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&
Dystopianfuturetoday=-7.9%2C-6.9&Alien+Concept=-4.4%2C-4.6&Ctrlaltbleach=-6.3%2C-5.5&Duckman33=-5.8%2C-4.6&Lucky760=-1.4%2C-2.4&Zifnab=-6.6%2C-5.9&Dag
=-4.0%2C-8.4&Fantomas=-7.1%2C-5.3&Gwiz665=0.5%2C-5.7&Lann=-3.1%2C-5.7&Speechless=-7.6%2C-6.0&Radx=-7.0%2C-7.7&Eric3579=-6.9%2C-7.5&Sarzy=0.5%2C-5.4&Bo
ise+Lib=-7.5%2C-7.3&Thegrimsleeper=-4.1%2C-6.2&Kulpims=-7.5%2C-8.4&Critical+D=-4.9%2C-6.9&Longde+=-3.5%2C-3.2&Norsuelefantti=-7.6%2C-7.4&Crosswords+=-
3.7%2C-4.9&Ron+Paul=9.5%2C-1.0&Obama=6.0%2C6.0&Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Qualm=-10.0%2C-10.0&Blankfist=3.9%2C-6.2&Farhad2
000=-3.4%2C-5.6&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-9.3%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-9.8%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&Peggedbea=-9.3%2C-9.8&newname=&newec=&newsoc=

Here is the chart so far. It's hard to read because of all the names unfortunately, but you can manually take people off the chart if you like. I added a few inactive sifters from the last time this was posted - if you are one of these people and want to retake, let me know and I'll change it. I also added all of the American presidential candidates and Obama. I'll wait for a few more days for others to join, then I'll post.




http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?showform=&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-3.4%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-5.6%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&
Dystopianfuturetoday=-7.9%2C-6.9&Alien+Concept=-4.4%2C-4.6&Ctrlaltbleach=-6.3%2C-5.5&Duckman33=-5.8%2C-4.6&Lucky760=-1.4%2C-2.4&Zifnab=-6.6%2C-5.9&Dag
=-4.0%2C-8.4&Fantomas=-7.1%2C-5.3&Gwiz665=0.5%2C-5.7&Lann=-3.1%2C-5.7&Speechless=-7.6%2C-6.0&Radx=-7.0%2C-7.7&Eric3579=-6.9%2C-7.5&Sarzy=0.5%2C-5.4&Bo
ise+Lib=-7.5%2C-7.3&Thegrimsleeper=-4.1%2C-6.2&Kulpims=-7.5%2C-8.4&Critical+D=-4.9%2C-6.9&Longde+=-3.5%2C-3.2&Norsuelefantti=-7.6%2C-7.4&Crosswords+=-
3.7%2C-4.9&Ron+Paul=9.5%2C-1.0&Obama=6.0%2C6.0&Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Qualm=-10.0%2C-10.0&Blankfist=3.9%2C-6.2&Farhad2
000=-3.4%2C-5.6&Newname=0.0%2C0.0&Newname=on&Newec=-9.3%2C0.0&Newec=on&Newsoc=-9.8%2C0.0&Newsoc=on&Peggedbea=-9.3%2C-9.8&newname=&newec=&newsoc=

Sure he would. This whole video is him speculating that Carolyn Maloney will be the Democratic Party's ranking member in the finance committee, because that's who the banksters want.

And then he spends 5 minutes crowing about how right he is because an article got published in a newspaper that pretty clearly indicated banksters like her. So what? Only crazy Republicans think the newspapers work for the Democratic party.

Plus, every quote he took from the article was sourced to someone on Wall Street's side. Where's a source from, say, someone in the Democratic party who's part of the decision-making process? Nowhere to be found in Cenk's piece. But, in the article he's sourcing all this from, there's this:

“For Nancy Pelosi, Maxine is a three-fer,” said one congressional staffer, noting that it will be Ms. Pelosi who ultimately makes the determination if Democrats retake control. “She is a fellow Californian, she is an African-American woman, and it is her turn.”

And this:

“A lot of folks in the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] would not look too kindly on an outside challenge,” said one Capitol Hill lobbyist. “They want to go back to the seniority system.”

And this:

For her part, Ms. Waters seems confident her long service will carry her through. “Let me let you in on a secret: I am the senior-most person serving on the Financial Services Committee,” she told the 2012 California State Democratic Convention last month. “Barney Frank is about to retire, and guess who’s shaking in their boots? The too-big-to-fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street because Maxine Waters is going to be the next chair of the Financial Services Committee.”

Oh, so Nancy Pelosi, the CBC, and Maxine herself all think she's a lock? Well, that would kinda undercut Cenk's anti-Democratic spin, so he doesn't mention any of that.

Cenk's whole show seemed to just be a vehicle for bashing Democrats, often for things they aren't actually guilty of doing. Like...this whole thing about Carolyn Maloney, which is 100% speculation!

At this point he honestly seems to me like some sort of Karl Rove creation designed to depress Democratic turnout and liberal activism.

>> ^messenger:

Cenk would only say that Waters had sold out to the banks if it were demonstrably true. He's big on backing up his statements with facts. He would never just speculate that she "must have" sold out.

Santorum retakes lead very narrowly

Santorum 24.6%
Romney 24.5%
Paul 21.1%

88% reporting

Any member of government that have voted today to enact the Super Congress that bypasses the house and senate for future bills by a 12 member commitee that removes the right of debate and filibuster by the house and senate should be executed for treason against the United States.

I firmly stand against any militia or patriot movement that wishes to take back the government after today's signing into law the creation of the new super congress. It's already been proven that phone calls, protests, writing your elected leaders, voting all does nothing. So it's time to start executing these treasonous bastards and retaking our government by force.

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Roman Emperors needed to establish legitimacy of their claim to the throne via a initial, successful, millitary campaign. I see an unfortunate parallel in our own time.

This is a modern myth. The Roman Empire stopped expanding in the beginning of the second century under Trajan, and continued to exist within these borders for almost 400 more years. There were often civil wars over successions, but most emperors ascended peacefully.


The Roman Empire reached its maximum extent in 117, but after that they still very often had to fight around the borders to keep/retake what they had.

>> ^Psychologic:

"People should have the right to do whatever they want, as long they don't infringe on the rights of others."
So how would a "non-statist" enforce such a principle? The free market?
If someone decides to forcefully take my property then what recourse do I have other than attempting to forcefully retake it?


This is the crux of the problem with anarchism.

"People should have the right to do whatever they want, as long they don't infringe on the rights of others."

So how would a "non-statist" enforce such a principle? The free market?

If someone decides to forcefully take my property then what recourse do I have other than attempting to forcefully retake it?


(Upvote, just in case this is the message Libertarians really want to convey.)

Thanks for the promote and interesting story, although the last sentence was the one that really raised my eyebrows:

"The cheating scandal is the latest blow to the Academy, which suffered a sexual harassment scandal in 1990 after eight male midshipmen chained a female classmate to a urinal."

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
>> ^EmptyFriend:

interesting story.
side note: i hope it's not a math course...
"the midterm exam makeup will open at 7AM on Monday morning, Nov 8.... it will close at midnight on November the 10th... it will be open 51 hours."
Sorry professor, that's 41 hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If they're keeping office hours from 7:00 am to midnight just for the makeup exam, that's 17 hours per day. (I highly doubt they would stay open 24 hrs/day, even to administer the makeup exam. They ain't working in a factory with night shifts.) If they do this on November 8, November 9, and November 10, that's three days. That would be 51 hours in total.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

He's bluffing. There's no way they could prove conclusively whether or not any one person was involved without searching their rooms/belongings for the cheat-sheet.
You're probably right. However they might compare each student's score on the cheat test with the scores they've gotten on previous tests in the course, and if their cheat test score is significantly higher than their previous test scores, then that could be a big red flag. Maybe that's just one of their lines of evidence against the 200 suspected cheaters.

However I was thinking the same thing @chtierna said: he's mainly bluffing the cheaters. The guilty parties are much better off simply retaking the exam (and even possibly doing badly) than not taking the exam and then risk being expelled for cheating.

Unfortunately this shit happens more often than many suspect, but most of the time it goes undetected. Anyone remember the cheating scandal at the US Naval Academy in the early '90s? Of course not; you're all a bunch of damn kids.

*promote

>> ^EmptyFriend:

interesting story.
side note: i hope it's not a math course...
"the midterm exam makeup will open at 7AM on Monday morning, Nov 8.... it will close at midnight on November the 10th... it will be open 51 hours."
Sorry professor, that's 41 hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If they're keeping office hours from 7:00 am to midnight just for the makeup exam, that's 17 hours per day. (I highly doubt they would stay open 24 hrs/day, even to administer the makeup exam. They ain't working in a factory with night shifts.) If they do this on November 8, November 9, and November 10, that's three days. That would be 51 hours in total.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

He's bluffing. There's no way they could prove conclusively whether or not any one person was involved without searching their rooms/belongings for the cheat-sheet.
You're probably right. However they might compare each student's score on the cheat test with the scores they've gotten on previous tests in the course, and if their cheat test score is significantly higher than their previous test scores, then that could be a big red flag. Maybe that's just one of their lines of evidence against the 200 suspected cheaters.

However I was thinking the same thing @chtierna said: he's mainly bluffing the cheaters. The guilty parties are much better off simply retaking the exam (and even possibly doing badly) than not taking the exam and then risk being expelled for cheating.

Unfortunately this shit happens more often than many suspect, but most of the time it goes undetected. Anyone remember the cheating scandal at the US Naval Academy in the early '90s? Of course not; you're just a bunch of damn kids.

*promote

So was that the only thing about Hitchens I got wrong? He's still a fat, rich, pompous git who advocates war against Iran right?
Actually as far as Iran goes he seems generally hopefully that the internal reform movement will succeed, and to my knowledge has NOT advocated war against Iran since that would harm the reformists. What Hitchens' has noted about Iran is that if the fundies at the top of the government get nukes that too could effectively end the reform movements ability to retake their country. He is fat, rich and pompous, and I think happy to add alcoholic to the mix, he's also still one of the best informed people on the middle east's biggest players.


Making fun and calling them names, instead of discussing the issues.
Completely unnecessary for Hitchens to personally attack the questioner.

Completely unnecessary to label the questioner a "fundamentalist apologist".

If you ask a stupid question...

I mean for him to overlook reasons 1 and 2 (which is the meat of the questioner's question) and look at reason 3 (as claimed by hitchens) for osama to hate the west.
Because reasons 1 and 2 differ so greatly in their nature? Your grasping at straws because you can't address the argument that Hitchens presented.


Religion may be the enabler of suicide and of taking extreme acts they would not contemplate in a rational state of mind, but the initial antipathy comes from genuine grievances. Whether it's seeing members of their nationality or ethnicity being imprisoned wrongly or tortured, or whether it's directly or indirectly suffering from violence inflicted upon them by the US or Israel, whether it's violating national hegemony or flat out staging coups, there are a range of genuine reasons for resentment.
The questioner has a point that a lot of the "religious violence" does come as a result of poor international relations choices, and that should be acknowledged by both sides.

As Hitchens would likely respond, NO!

Those arguments are lies and you should know better after having just watched Hitchens annihilate them. Simply look at some of the groups that have suffered the most from American actions. While Saddam was gassing the Kurdish people not only were the Americans allied to him, they even blamed the atrocity on Iran. Iranians suffered even more from the last decade of American interference. If your arguments hold then the people from those regions might be the ones you'd expect to be rising up against America, no? Instead you see the Kurds and the Iranian youth being bigger fans of America than Europe.

It's also apparently necessary to repeat that Hitchens clearly showed that the reasons stated by fundamentalist groups for hating America have little if anything to do with the atrocities America has committed, but instead with the ones it has PREVENTED!

But if you refuse to see and hear the distinction that's on you. I'm glad there is someone as informed, eloquent, aggressive and vocal as Hitchens out there calling out the wrongs being done when he see's them, regardless of who commits them.

>> ^blankfist:
How's fighting the good fight working out for you? Obviously not well so far.

I've really only just gotten into any form of activism in the last 3 years, and in those 3 years, I've seen my party retake the House, the Senate, and the White House. I've seen the policies I'm in favor of go from 40% support to 60+% support.

I'm surfing a wave, but it's been good to be a liberal. Where things go from here is the big question, but I like what I've seen so far.

How's pushing for a third party workin' out for ya?

Try negotiating your contract with the government and let's see how that works out for you. At least with the credit card companies everything is negotiable.

Really? Which credit card company do you have? I think it usually works out the same; they tell me if I don't like it I can leave.

ok i got around to retaking it

economic: -9.25
social: -9.81

still looking kind of anarcho-collectivist. which is right on. my ideal society lives in egalatarian tribal communities on the texas plains. we raise our children to be naturally defiant, yet respectful, and we worship the great spirit, which is nothing more or less than the ecological bond between all living things. also.... we dance.

no time to retake this this week, but i think you would all benefit to know that the last 3 times i took it it stuck me way down by myself all the way in the left handcorner with the anarchosyndacalists... i considered going to my local wobbly meetings afterwards, but quickly realized i stopped hanging out with the baby crusty punks for a reason.....


reasons this benefits you in your life: now we all have numerical proof that i am a more evolved being. haha!

I'm glad I got to experience that moment with my best friend and a few hundred other people :-)

In reply to this comment by alizarin:
Wiki summary:
As Obama and Chief Justice John G. Roberts recited the Oath of office, Obama interrupted Roberts as he administered the oath. Roberts then incorrectly recited the Oath of office, stating, "that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully" (rather than "that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States"). Obama began to recite, and paused, whereby Roberts attempted to correct his mistake.[23] Several constitutional lawyers have said that Obama should retake the oath as soon as possible, as Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur did under similar circumstances.[24]

I'm sure he redid it already in private.

I watched the inauguration in a packed theater in my home town and it was an incredible experience for someone who's lost faith in his fellow Americans over the past 8 years.