And here's Obama's actual quote:

Obama, Feb. 24, 2009: And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option.

Sounds like godless liberal elitism to me. Slow down there Lenin H. Rockefeller

http://factcheck.org/2012/02/college-kills-faith/

>> ^jmzero:

Lol. She says this stuff like she's found some hidden truth. The Republican base, for the most part, doesn't care much about helping poor people. This isn't a dark secret or a time when he misspoke or something, this is their platform. Who knows what Romney actually thinks, but of course he's not going to talk about helping poor people (beyond the very minimum he has to say to not come across as a puppy eater). He wants to win the nomination.
Calling him out on it is like calling Lenin out for being a Communist. You can say "Communism is wrong so don't vote for Lenin", but it's ridiculous to "catch Lenin saying Communist things" or something.


You're right, but I think that it's still important to say it. The media is a powerful tool and the more this message is spread, the less effective the 'mainstream media' message is.

Lol. She says this stuff like she's found some hidden truth. The Republican base, for the most part, doesn't care much about helping poor people. This isn't a dark secret or a time when he misspoke or something, this is their platform. Who knows what Romney actually thinks, but of course he's not going to talk about helping poor people (beyond the very minimum he has to say to not come across as a puppy eater). He wants to win the nomination.

Calling him out on it is like calling Lenin out for being a Communist. You can say "Communism is wrong so don't vote for Lenin", but it's ridiculous to "catch Lenin saying Communist things" or something.

>> ^marbles:

And price changes from an increased "supply" of currency is called inflation.

Before I get into the rest of what you said, I want to just highlight this part because it's an example of the root problem with your entire reply.

You seem to have this habit of making tautological arguments that hinge on asserting that the premise you wish to prove is baked into the very definition of some word, and therefore you don't need to actually make an argument for said premise.

I've been here with you before, about a word whose definition is much fuzzier than inflation (liberty), but now you're doing it with a word whose definition is very specific, and clearly does not contain the premise you want it to contain.

This is also my answer to your disagreement about the meaning of fractional reserve banking.

This is also my answer to your disagreement about what modern-day Keynesian monetary theories say. I'll also add that your quote isn't a Keynes original, it's Keynes quoting Vladimir Lenin.

As to your very last bit, you have a funny idea of what "earned honestly" means. Supposedly you resent banks gambling with our savings. Did they honestly "earn" our savings?

The Lenin one made him look like an Insane Clown Posse person.

@hpqp

I’d like to ask you to bear with me a little longer. I'm trying to understand your point of view. I am very interested in the basis of your beliefs--basically, how you came to your conclusion. I would ask you tone down the condescension a bit so we can have a reasonable discussion.

So let's try approaching this from a different angle... what exactly does Harris (and I'm assuming you as well) hope to accomplish with all this? What's the endgame? And how does he/you propose we get there?

By the way, this debate reminds me of the academic debate over whether violence is inherent to the ideology of Communism. There have volumes written on the topic and to date it hasn’t been settled (as far as I know). The evidence presented by those who believe violence is inherent in Communism parallels the evidence you have presented to me—they raise the original writings of both Marx and the Bolsheviks as well as Stalin’s atrocities, Tiananmen Square, etc. Opponents of this view point out that the violence in the writings was to be interpreted as only to be used against oppressors: the subsequent acts of violence that continued after the revolution was complete (for example, Lenin’s use of terror against his own people) was not what the original visionaries had in mind.

See here for an example analysis:

http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/twentiethcenturycommunism/articles/2whorley.html

Not trying to prove anything with that link. Just found the argument fascinatingly similar.

Wow, where do I start...
Point 1).- Of course he is an idiot, why? I bet it takes a "Smart" person to judge other by they difference, ohh yea is very "smart" to keep an argument when you know the other part is stupid, yea very "smart"

Point 2).- Ok, lets keep the word game "If you dont belive as I, your an Idiot" (and before you start whining, I know those are not the exact words, but he is saying "If you belive in a religion you are and Idiot" so he is implying that "If you dont belive as I" youre an Idiot) and where do I have heard those word...Ohh I know I know RELIGION!

Point 3).- Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Slobodan Milosevic, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, sure were/are some very nice atheist

as a personal note about the "smart atheist" I have 2 very close frieds of my one, is a Mechanical engineer and the other one barely finished High School, can you guess who's the religious one and who's the atheist?

PS
What do you call some one that does not belive in religion but strongly disagrees with what the atheist are trying to shove it down our throats
Well may be Im the idiot...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^COriolanus:
Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?

The one I have been reading about is MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND
There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.


It's wrong that Dark Matter is just some wacky thing created because of the maths. It is observed, through its gravitational interaction. Just because it doesn't interact electromagnetically doesn't mean it's invisible. It's also wrong that Dark Matter behaves the exact opposite of real matter. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and we already know of particles that interact through one force of nature and not through others. To posit a new fundamental particle that could fit the Dark Matter profile is not really that far fetched. There are even candidates obtained through Supersymmetry that may or may not provide the right answer. I don't find this messy at all, and frankly, Nature doesn't care if you think its rules are messy or not.

Also, if you don't like messiness, MOND is really not the right answer for you. Modified Newtonian Dynamics is an interesting concept with some interesting results for their own sake, and it may still ultimately prove correct. The idea that extrapolation from high gravitational fields to low ones might be unsound is something that should not be dismissed. But so far, the data are not in MOND's favour.

>> ^COriolanus:

Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?


The one I have been reading about is MOND

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

There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory

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

I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.

I only had to read 3 of the "200 lies" to see that the person who wrote it has never really read, nor understood, Chomsky... except maybe in-order to get his 'out of context' quotes.

I've been following Chomsky for over 20 years and you'd be hard pressed to come up with something on him. He has been intellectually consistent and on-topic since the 70's. He was against the slaughter of peasants in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, East Timor, Iraq, Palestine, and every other hidden murder zone in the last 50 years.

When the "200 lies" start with Chomsky's take on Lenin, the author's already proven himself to be a moron. Chomsky's only downside is that he bores people who aren't intellectual enough and infuriates people who are brainlessly patriotic.
>> ^quantumushroom:

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies.
Oh, that's right, it's FOX that has an agenda.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies


I love how they label the nuanced statements of Chomsky as "The Lie" and their half-truthy reinterpretation of them as "The Truth".

Example:

The Lie: “I have never considered myself a ‘Marxist,’ and in fact regard such notions as
‘Marxist’ (or ‘Freudian,’ etc.) as belonging more to the domain of organized religion than of
rational analysis.”

The Truth: Previously, Chomsky had said: “in my opinion, a Marxist-anarchist perspective
[on politics] is justified quite apart from anything that may happen in linguistics.” He had also
declared: “I wouldn’t abandon Marxism.”


Here's the last quote in context, from a printed interview and thus easily cited out of context:
"[Chomsky:] [...] But I don't see any reason to abandon the notion anarchism just because it has some strange periphery that uses it [namely, the right-wing anarcho-capitalists].
[Interviewer:] Just as you wouldn't abandon Marxism.
[Chomsky:] Yes, like I wouldn't abandon Marxism. After all, we're not interested in making heroes and identifying ourselves with them, but of finding what's valid in various ideas and concepts and actions that have some use for us."

So, Chomsky says we can't abandon either anarchism or marxism as wholes just because of some extremist interpretations. How does that say he is a Marxist? It does not, of course, unless you are a paranoid anti-communist trying to discredit Chomsky by associating him with what you consider an Evil ideology.

Also, you must understand that being a scholarly discussion, Marxism is here strictly differentiated from Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. Marxism only refers to the initial political doctrine as expounded by Karl Marx.

As we can see, the cited text is taken out of context and made to imply much more that it actually says. Of course this is the typical modus operandi of the right, because let's be honest: their only arguments are those that appeal to our greed and selfishness. Better to demonize the opposition and thus appear angelic by default.

I doubt any of us here are climatologists, but we are people. As people, we can expect people doing science on climate to not be entirely dissimilar to us. While they my process possess information regarding a particular area, they are not immune to the culture they live and work in. Quine talked about this a lot. That science doesn't evolve like the romantic picture that is painted. Rather, like pop culture, science shifts its entire focus from one foundational theory to another. Einstein doesn't extend Newton, it replaces it. Why do we not, rather, adapt the math of Newtonian physics to incorporate the data of relativity and keep the same mindset of forces instead of space time warps? Quines answer is that, like pop culture, a mans theory only lasts as long as he is around to extend it. Eventually, no matter if your theoretical construct was correct, if you aren't around to sort out the sometimes minor technicalities...your out. The people after you will eventually supplant your theory with something else more trendy. That science is subject to the same rules of the schoolyard as anything else. Peer review is more of a contest of popularity and not overall truth value.

As such, the very act of peer review is subject to the cultural perspective of the day. The moral and political climate of the day speaks volumes to what peer evaluated papers support or don't. Peer review is the best we have in science to approximate how we experience the universe, but it is not without its short comings. Let us not fall into the fallacy of authority, and majority in stating x group of people are more correct than y group opposed. Instead, judge things on merit of the argument.

To that end, I find that I am undecided on the whole debate. Moreover, I hesitate to put government in control of saving the environment...such was already their responsibility in the gulf. I don't want to live in a world of wrappers and smog, and to that end, I am motivated for cleaner technologies. Being wasteful has always felt somewhat despicable. To me, I remain skeptical of mans prowess of weather prediction. Year after year there is tail of "the worst hurricane season in history" that fails to show itself. If you say it enough I guess eventually it will be right, but that takes some of the wind out of the sails(har har har).

Furthermore, where is the data to support that global warming would even be bad? The only fact to the end that I am even familiar with is more extreme weather, and that dried up lake in Africa. I have lived next to lots dried up lakes and rivers...so that seems like more of a social disaster than an environmental one.

In the end, I feel like there is some snake oil salesmanship over the whole ordeal. I think we want to believe that we are the next greatest disaster. We will entwine any evidence into the web of belief . And ostracize anyone that deviates. We have always been at war with Eurasia, after all.

edited: grammar and spelling

The scary part happens when Republican presidents get the media to systematically silence dissent...

The only ‘silencing of dissent’ is on the left side of the aisle. And how nice it all sounds… ‘Net Neutrality’, the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, ‘Political Correctness’, ‘Academic Fairness’… The left is the side that engages in the systematic suppression of dissent – not the right. I have a longer memory span than 5 minutes, and there is nothing BUT ‘dissent’ when the GOP is in the White House. Dissent was ‘patriotic’ during Bush, but now is ‘the party of NO’ during Obama, right? But of course good little left-wing zombies have no problem with that.

If I break something of yours, do you have to 100% go through the courts to get compensation? No. Why? Because civil court is totally optional.

If you break my stuff (and refuse to pay for it) then YES I 100% have to go through the courts to get compensation. You’ve proven my point. I don’t go to Obama’s pay czar. Court is where I go, and failing that, I call my congressman and let him know the courts aren't doing their job. I do NOT go to the Executive branch except to write a whiny letter.

I have not been programmed to have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response where I wet myself with fear whenever the word "government" comes into play.

This is patently untrue. You do have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response to wet yourself with fear whenever the word ‘government’ comes into play and ‘conservative’ is involved. The blind, unthinking, slavish trust only applies when a left wing radical is in charge. I believe it was Lenin (another leftist) who called these kinds of fanbois “useful idiots”. People who aren’t critical of government at all times and in all things are fools. The price of freedom is vigilance, and the only good government is LIMITED government.

I'm sure there will be Congressional oversight of this

Oh – well – that ignores history, facts, and precedent - but as long as you're SURE... You aren’t picking up what I’m putting down. I don’t care if Obama is distilled perfection made of unicorn hairs and angel feathers… It doesn’t matter if BP ‘volunteers’ (yeah right – then why the closed door meeting?). This is not something the Executive branch is allowed to do for ANY reason. Ever. Period. It has no authority to do this, and government isn’t allowed to just ‘assume’ authority over whatever they want no matter how munificent they may think they are.

Ahh, so now you're defining down what constitutes a legitimate claim from what even BP says is legitimate? Good to know you don't want to "let them off the hook"...

No – I’m defining ‘responsible’. BP isn’t responsible for lost business. Tourism down? Is that BP’s fault? Maybe partly. But you can also blame the media, the government, the economy, and a whole host of other parties for that. BP is responsible for damage and cleanup. That's it. I see no need for them to pay for ancillary issues that may or may not be related.

Everyone is answerable.

To who? When? You say ‘answerable’ but one of the main problems with federal government is that NO ONE is ever held responsible for anything. They never go to jail for breaking the law. They never pay damages for the consequences of their bad politics. So they ‘lose an election’? Awwwwwww – how terrible for them. They still keep getting money & payola. They still get political back-patting. They still get put on unaccountable ‘blue ribbon’ panels for exorbitant payoffs. They keep getting on TV shows and money for speeches, commentary and books. They still are put on cabinet positions, or other unelected unaccountable political jobs where they still effect policy and get away with murder.

See, when you really get down to the brass tacks the political class is in NO WAY ever ‘answerable’ for their bad behavior and terrible decisions. They just get a brief – all too toothless – wet noodling and then skate off clean while everyone else has to pay for them to keep on partying. Clinton. Impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Did he lose his office? No. Did he go to jail? No. Did he have to pay millions in damages? No. He got a tiny slap on the wrist and then the left circled the wagons around him and set him up for life so he’d specifically NEVER have to be truly culpable for his high crime. He should be in jail, or living in a cardboard shack, penniless and shunned to the end of his days. Instead he’s living high on the hog courtesy of constant political payola. And you call that ‘answerable’?

So what happens WHEN (not IF) Obama’s pay czar starts mis-handling the BP funds? Exactly HOW is he going to be ‘answerable’? To whom will he pay millions in damages? What jail will he go to? How will he be banned from politics for life afterwards? And how is Obama ‘answerable’ for unconstitutionally claiming money in the first place? But I don’t hear anyone making him ‘answerable’ for his unconstitutional, illegal act. All I see are left-wing zombies defending the illegal, and GOP cowards who don't have to guts to stand up for the constitution anymore.

Also from him...

"What is the truth about rock music? Music is a powerful and perhaps the
most powerful medium in the world. Music. Plato says when the music
of a society changes, the whole society will change. Aristotle, a contemporary
of Plato's, says when music changes there should be laws to govern the
nature and the character of that music. Lenin says that the best and the
quickest way to undermine any society is through its music...Music, ladies
and gentleman, is the gift of God it was given to man to offer praises
to God and to lift us up to him and to exalt Him to touch the tender
recesses of our hearts and of our minds. Satan has taken music and he has
counterfeited it, convoluted it, twisted it, exploited it and now he's
using it to hammer, hammer, hammer, hammer, hammer a message into the minds
and the lifestyles of this generation."

--"Jimmy Swaggert"--

dedushka (grandpa) Lenin would be proud