Republicans said anyone over 65 would have a death panel decide if they were worth treating, a flat out lie, and miles away from suggesting maybe we wouldn't authorize a heart and lung transplant for 90 year olds, or other multimillion dollar procedures...of course nothing would stop them from paying for the procedures themselves. Now, under republican leadership, death panels are what's happening by necessity in Texas.

I guess the rest of the world is Democrats, because the rest of the world shutdown, but really shutdown not a voluntary minimal social distancing 1/2 ass shutdown where most businesses and public spaces stayed open. Where shutdowns actually happened, Covid was quickly under control. Where they weren't or where they were lifted, Covid is exploding....like America and Brazil.
150000 dead Americans citizens and counting is a nothing burger. 4 dead in Benghazi calls for shutting the government down until we lock her up.

I'll tell my politicians to follow at least minimal health guidelines and not open until two weeks of serious declines, and to make masks mandatory with large fines and jail time for repeat offenders.

If Trump had closed down and told his morons to wear masks, not incited them to gather in large groups without masks over and over, he could have been a hero, but instead he ignored the problem and encouraged the worst, most unsafe, guaranteed to extend shutdowns behavior and so we have the worst death rates on earth, with India closing fast.

Biden is good, but even he can't solve the Trump virus crisis in two months now...if he were president in Jan 2020, yeah, two months is about right.

But.....Bcglorf said: Capitalism (or many unrelated civic freedoms) made science and progress possible. The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.
Edit: my mistake, vil said that, not bcglorf.

Also, the video is about contradicting that exact contention.

No they aren't, because America isn't just "an economy based on capitalism", which you yourself pointed out. They all come from innovations in systems and inventions created through American socialism.

Again, pre '68, before America went the socialist route to advance computer sciences, not after. Yes, after we used a combination of socialism and capitalism, we were more successful. That's my point.

China is working on 6g, and nearly ready with 5g. America isn't. That cannot be simply because China stole our advancements since they're ahead of us. They also, as you've admitted, developed better (cheaper/faster) manufacturing methods both because of technological advancements and few or no regulations (which have caused them horrendous issues). Funny enough, removing the regulations for more profit at the expense of the workers/environment is capitalistic, not socialist.

Their 5G is better because it's 1)almost ready to deploy and 2) cheaper. Ours isn't ready for prime time yet, and has used billions in public funds to get where it is. The FCC also proposed a $20 billion fund to expand broadband (5g)....that's not capitalism.

Ahhh, switching topics, eh? I thought the topic is capitalism vs socialism as it relates to invention, not fascism. I'm not going to bite.

Ok, personal enrichment is one of many incentives that drive invention, but invention happens without that incentive daily.

Once again, necessity is the mother of invention, not capitalism or profit.

You miss the point if you claim he contradicts that conclusion, because the systems invented that the examples require were ALL publicly funded. Without the socialist inventions, there would be no capitalistic innovations. No internet=no world wide web. No WiFi means no WiFi. No displays=no mobile computers/phones. No access to phone lines=no data transfers, so no internet, www, etc.

If his numbers are correct, 72% of research spending is public funding, not private. Nuff said.

Not a straw man one bit. I didn't say you made the list, but you accepted it as the topic and your examples.

Again, they didn't personally profit. Government employees don't own patents on what they create on the job, and didn't profit personally from them. That came later from the public sector. Even in the private sector, inventors often don't profit from inventions they create at work, their company does. I'm certainly not saying people don't profit from their inventions, just not in these publicly funded cases.

100% of the examples were based on purely taxpayer funded inventions, created not through capitalism, not created for profit. Publicly funded projects are SOCIALISM. Those who spout hate of anything socialism should immediately get off the internet.

Again, G5 and G6 are being led by communist countries. Invention isn't tied to profit, especially these inventions.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit.

Do we need another round? We're going in circles because you insist socialist academic inventions are due solely to the incentive of profit, ignoring their history and origins.

The comments suggest it used to be a necessity for all card players before plasticized cards were the norm, because old cards would warp from humidity.
Today, you're correct. They are for card manipulators almost exclusively.

@newtboy,
without racial preferencing FOR white kids
I know for a fact though that in Canada any law, policy or practice that in any way, shape or form stated that has been abolished long ago. Any new ones would be destroyed in court immediately and without question. I've always understood the US to be the same, is that not correct? Is there anywhere in existence in US law, or policies that discrimination based upon race, outside of affirimative action, is ever allowed to exist?

I was convinced enough that the US was like Canada in this regard that back when Obama was president I had someone tell me about a Breitbart report claiming anti-white racism being dictated directly from the President's office. I barely bothered to look for evidence to disprove such a blatant lie from a known extremist propaganda rag. It's hard to express my shock/discouragement to hear that very same refrain, not from a right winger, but from the sources on the left adamant about the necessity of it...

I don't know how else to say this without repeating myself, but you can't achieve equality with racism. It is a situation where even if you are right, your still wrong. Putting actual race based discrimination into official party policy, and now apparently even into law is no longer something society is willing to tolerate. Doubly so when their children are the ones being discriminated against. The people will vote you out of office. You can kiss swing states goodbye. They will stack the Supreme Court against you to challenge and throw out the discriminatory law as unconstitutional.

You are fighting a battle you can not win. You are wrong to think that solving the problem of underfunded schools in bad socioeconomic regions is the harder nut to crack. Maintaining a law and systematic racism against whites to 'balance' the lack of opportunity is much harder, it's being dismantled already because people will not tolerate it. Demanding that university's open up XX spots for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, regardless of race is already normal practice here in Canada and everyone can get on board. Doing it for race though, humans just don't work that way. The only times that's been successfully maintained is through force of numbers or military strength.

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

@Mordhaus I agree with you, and I didn't mean to say that was the ONLY pinpoint that was worth noting. But as someone who graduated in 2002, I've seen a steady gradation of change over the past 16 years that can in a large part be traced back to those policy changes.

I'm also not blaming the textbook companies for being for-profit companies. But, much like healthcare in this country, education is something people NEED. It's not a luxury, it's a necessity. I'm of the opinion that it should be treated like the social service that it is and the blame rests with lawmakers that force schools into patronage of testing producers with little or no oversight written into the law.

On your 1-5 list:

1) That can be a difficult subject, you're oftentimes doubling the cost of wardrobes for poor families, and it's the kid who can only afford 1 uniform that's full of tatters that gets bullied anyway.

2) I'm not anti-standards, but the way that those standards are assessed are not reflected in the tests the students take. Moreover, VERY FEW jobs (if any) require a person to answer A B C D over and over as a way to make a living. In other words, answering multiple choice questions is not a skill most people need.

3) Yes. My average classroom size is 28. 50 minutes with 28 kids in a room, you do the math on the individualized attention they get.

4) I've seen some counties near my locale that have instituted a no cell phone ordinance, banning them from the campus. It's possible, but one needs the support of the community.

5) Send your kid where you want, but I don't think my tax dollars should go to pay for Johnny to go to religious institutions. It feels, in that circumstance, that the government is endorsing a particular religious viewpoint to do so.

I'm very big on religious freedom, but the depths of emotional exploitation, deceit and manipulation of this entire program should be criminal. We recognize other kinds of con jobs and convict for it, this crew should be too.

Religious freedom should start getting cut off when you preach the necessity of giving the speaker your money in exchange for what they will do for you. Giving to a charity that will go on to help others is one thing, it's another to pay money to get someone to promise you their 'blessing', prayers, or even financial rewards that will metaphysically be manifest in return.

I think it's an ugly necessity.

Equality isn't about treating everybody the same. I mean, I wish we could do that, but then I wish people wouldn't decide if they are going to hire somebody from their very first glance. But that's what we do. We do nothing and we simply allow our unconscious bias to rule our decision making which, in most cases, would be great for somebody like me.

I mean, I don't like it. I can understand entirely why people feel they have been cheated when somebody gets a job or promotion ahead of them just for the sake of ticking a diversity checkbox. Maybe you're right, maybe it is just adding energy to that pendulum, but then a pendulum without resistance swings forever. I hope conscious decisions to readdress imbalanced caused by unconscious bias works more as a dampening effect, as resistance.

Back to semantics. Like the woman in the video, I probably had quite a knee-jerk response to men's rights. Sometimes probably warranted, but then some feminists have some pretty dumb things to say as well. Anyway, the person that helped changed by mind about it was a woman and a feminist. Don't define a group by it's most extreme edges because I think it just leads you to make uncharitable judgements about people that identify as part of that group before you've even really listened to them.

Yes, I agree my iPhone 7 is a good product. I never saw a cellphone as a necessity but I have to say I wouldn't be able to do my current job without it. My company sent me to a remote site to replace the network router and switch and my iPhone served as the hotspot to connect to VPN so the network engineers could remote in to my laptop and run Putty to configure the new equipment. At the same time I'm talking to them on that phone, emailing them pictures of the equipment with it, checking my personal email, etc without a performance hit on the phone. I would have been listening to Pandora too if I didn't have to talk to them. So I was impressed that this device not much bigger than a playing card could do all that.

Considered illegal aliens by who?
Legally, no, they're citizens (these are the "anchor babies" you've probably heard of), but practically, they usually go with their parents when they're deported.
Another downside of familial deportation....those child citizens may come back to America as adults...uneducated, poor, now mostly unAmerican adults. It seems smart to me to keep them here, and by necessity their guardians, and educate them so they don't drag us down later....but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

@bobknight33
unsure if you are gloating that you uncovered some deep,dark secret,and are exposing some political conspiracy.

or are just re-iterating what i already posted.

for years i have seen you promote and tout the validity and necessity of the tea party for those who may be disgruntled with the mainstream republican party.

a party that started with modest means,but is now funded by some of the most wealthy and influential political players in our country:the koch bothers.

they even changed their name to the freedom caucus.
and they nominate candidates,and come out to support them.

so how is the tea party,which broke away from the establishment republicans to promote a politics that is more in line with the constitution,ANY different from the people who are sick and tired of corporate,establishment democrats? who ALSO have decided that enough is enough and have banded together to nominate their own candidates,and support those candidates to represent THEIR politics and ideological philosophies.

how,exactly,is that different?

because while you may disagree with justice democrats politically,and i suspect you do,you should also be proud that they are taking a stand and sticking up for their beliefs.

are you SO unaware of your own bias,prejudice and hyper-partisanship as to not recognize when a group of people are doing the EXACT same thing as your tea party did?

be careful bob,your bias and hypocrisy are showing.
and you are becoming a partisan hack,attacking any and everything that is contrary to your own politics,even when in reality it is performing the very same thing that you state to admire.

so what is more important to you?
honesty,integrity and sticking to your moral values?
or political affilliations?

because i can disagree with someones politics,and still admire and respect them standing up for their values.(that includes you bob).

i gather this is something you are incapable of doing,because in bob's world"politics trumps everything else,end of discussion.

if you want to sully your eyes a bit,check out what the justice democrats are seeking to do,and what their base philosophy is:
https://justicedemocrats.com/platform

*promote
*quality

Meh, I would have had to watch more than 15 seconds of that video to really reply thoughtfully to your comment. Turns out, 15 seconds is all it took to realize the presenter was full of shit.

:-)

I feel no shame for eating cheese. I feel no shame for eating the eggs that my backyard chickens produce. I don't even feel shame when I occasionally have to wring one for getting sick or old...I just don't relish the necessity.
I didn't feel shame when I ate the freezer full of beef from the cow my kids had named. (Man-Eating-Cow, if you're interested)

I do have shame in my life. Any life lived fully and introspectively will include some moments of shame. But none of those moments have anything to do with consuming the food my body needs to survive. Or even the foods I don't need to survive...but really enjoy.

This is kind of annoying to me. The only grid this guy is living off of is the electrical grid. He's got guns and ammunition, vehicles, boats, internal combustion engines, gasoline, oil etc etc. Take away civilization and he will, of necessity, start to revert to pre industrial living fairly quickly. He's not some eco warrior or rugged individualist protecting nature, he's living off of everybody else's little corner of paradise.