jduff

So, just to be sure I'm tracking this...

 

You first claimed that China's economy would be larger than the US economy by the end of this year.

 

You were corrected and shown that this is only true when viewed in context of one very particular (and limited) metric, GDP as measured by purchasing power parity, and you had it explained to you that PPP has important limitations and that various other insights into the Chinese economy must also be considered when making claims like this.

 

Then, in response you're arguing that China's economy will surpass the US this year, because... because they're going to start trading with Russia in a different currency.

 

Are you familiar with the concept of a nonsequitur? Do you care that that does not follow?

 

 

Unrelated: Here's a helpful primer for you - http://www.grammar.cl/english/there-their-they-are.htm

Inow take your crap to most of the economists in the U.S and Europe and explain your case to them. For supposedly really intelligent people here. You guys are quite the dumbasses.

Get a CLUE ASSHAT! By the way, this is my last post at this site. Has to be the worst science site on the web. A bunch of political activists who use science as a means. Screw you! And all the libtards who hang here! Im DONE.. LATER ASSHOLES!

Still all economic calculations are in dollars. And at all a barter of goods isn't currency.

Only in the west

Update again. For our Naysayers! Russia and China announced they are no longer using the U.S currency for trade. Rather they are going to use they're national currencies. Guess that shoots whatever argument you guys thought you had with me over the Russian/China economies! By the way! Told you it was coming!

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140520/189968566/Russia-China-Plan-to-Expand-Payments-in-National-Currencies.html

Also, things are changing in a big way for U.S/China relationships. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/20/us-china-usa-espionage-idUSBREA4J03D20140520

Man ohh man.. All the debate theorists here. Good luck with that!

Or, you know... ignore this input and keep acting like an ill-educated blowhard not to be taken seriously. That's your choice. It's a free country, after all.

Considering it takes multiple people like you Inow(Intellectual fakes) to actually come up with a answer or keep a attack argument going. I will take that as a compliment. And really your answer is nothing more than what I put into perspective. In fact one of your links is one I shared.

The difference between me and you Inow, and it will always be a difference. Is I spend very little time actually making posts here.With very little effort. While I waste alot of your time and effort because you actually have to look things up just to get a argument!

 

I think it is quite straightforward: It is a big risk for any nation to rely on the cooperation of 1 country that is outside your sphere of influence. In the current global economy, almost all large trade blocks spread their risks by trading with many partners. If relations go sour with 1 partner, you still have others to trade with. For Russia therefore, it is unfavorable to trade with only China, especially since they do not control China, and would therefore be dependent on the decisions taken in Beijing, with little room to move.

 

I think that DimaMazin used the word "isolated" because jduff seems to suggest that the BRIC(S) nations can develop completely independent from the EU/USA. Since China is the only major economy in the BRICS nations (it has over 50% of the GDP of the BRICS nations), this would effectively mean that Russia would trade only with China. Also, it is worth mentioning that jduff was factually incorrect about the size of their economy: BRICS total GDP is around 15 billion, while the USA has 16 billion all by itself, and the EU is even larger, with around 17 billion, so the size of the economy of the BRICS countries is not even half of the size of the Western economy, and that is excluding all the smaller nations that are depending on the Western nations for trade.

Had to respond because I really do not like the use of Wikpedia on some subjects. As it is quite dated. As to factually incorrect. Captain, all I can say is you either need to google better or get up with the times. As your post represents what is considered outdated data. In fact the Wikpedia figures are from 2011 not 2014. China is to surpass the U.S this summer economically. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d79ffff8-cfb7-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html

Also wanted to give you some additional links. Since you are going on limited information. Especially when GDP is not used anymore for a accurate accounting of a countries economic growth. But only in part!

Here are the additional links:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/30/china-overtake-us-worlds-largest-economy

In PDF: http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/Lin.pdf

As to the isolation question. Ill just give you this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-19/putin-seeks-400-billion-gas-deal-as-ukraine-speeds-china-pivot.html

Like I said and make the assertion again. BRIC's countries are breaking out and away from the U.S dollar and the wests monetary system. 4 of the 5 BRIC's member nations are in the top 10 economies of the world. With China positioned to replace the U.S. My factual assertions remain that.

Like I said, less google, more research. Everyone can google. But sometimes it is better to data mine on your own. Instead of expecting a service to do it for you!

Also you should be watching China very closely. Some big events coming out this week if not next from that country.

And most of it has to do with Obama. The timing is right. Considering the weak president we have in office.

 

Sorry, WTF? Jail? Impeachment? My examples for jail were criminal acts: fraud, libel and slander. Without examples, this is meaningless. Even with examples I expect this will be meaningless.

 

As far as being called on it in the press, are you serious? Obama, et al. aren't pilloried daily on FOX ? (Not to mention often for doing the very same things that GOPers never got any grief for) and criticized elsewhere? People don't fact-check statements made by the left? Really?

My ohh my.. a bit one sided swansont. American news turns out propaganda 24/7/365. This includes FOX, MSNBC,CBS, ABC,CNN.. all the major news networks., After all satis magnum alter alteri theatrum sumus (Epicurus).

I hope you are ready. Many of the democrat supporters which are billionaires are leaving the U.S high and dry! This includes George Soros. Who in the past month has been selling off his U.S assets.

Glad you have such faith in our media.

 

Just because you can't think of another way does not mean there is no other way. Having repercussions for lying or being clueless is not generally considered censorship; lying for financial gain is often considered fraud. Lying about people can be defamation, slander and libel. Speech that is not protected in the US, and it's not censorship if you prosecute the perpetrators for their unprotected and illegal speech.

 

Being treated harshly by the press and the populace would be one solution, and not censorship; being free of censorship is not the same as being free of consequences. Being called out for such statements is not happening widely with the press at present, but it's a potential solution.

But Swansont, none of what you said will even occur. If that were the case. Then our current president would already be impeached. Eric Holder would be in jail. Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid would both be locked up as well. John Boehner would be facing several criminal charges. Just to name a few! Not even counting our esteemed California congressmen and senators. Which is a whole different ball of wax!

I do not see that happening anytime soon. Nor do I see anything coming of the article that started this set of threads. At most, your explanation and or answers represents "wishful "thinking. In the imaginary world of the ideal. Your answer would most likely occur. But the reality of what we live in differs greatly from the ideal.

As far as the press goes. Exactly which press would become the martyr? Both me and you know the real deal concerning the press. It is not even real news anymore.

I asked you to explain yourself; you didn't.

http://xkcd.com/169/

Sure John. I will explain. The original question asked in this set of threads(The Title)asks "How to eliminate this? Which leads to the only possible way of eliminating such things without committing crime. Which would be censorship right? So when I typed censorship, I am asking is that acceptable and is there no other way. The key word is eliminate. That is a very definitive word and not broad. Why I brought up the question of censorship.

Just a update. Russia has the green light with its partners(China, Iran)to de-dollar trade with its partners. Instead they will be using rubles and yuan. Considering Russia is the number one natural gas exporter and the number 2 oil exporter for the world. This plays a significant factor in the future economies of all countries. You can fine the details here: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_05_13/Russia-strives-to-exclude-the-dollar-from-energy-trading-5138/

Looks like those sanctions are working! Just gave Russia a excuse to change the economics of the world. Of course China warned both the U.S and Europe about sanctions against Russia. here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/us-ukraine-crisis-china-idUSBREA2C0PB20140313

Get to watch this play out. Already see expensive food prices. Can only imagine the cost when this takes affect!

And to think. People in the U.S believe China would never side with Russia. It owns too much U.S debt. The reality is BRIC's*(China) is the number 1 economic group in the world. They can drop us like a bad habit! Wonder what would happen if Russia and or China announced that the currency they use is now backed up by a gold standard.

As to how friendly our trade partner China is, you better wake up! http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-31/why-did-brics-back-russia-crimea

 

The above screed on global warming. It's an idealogical position, not based on fact, meaning it's dogma.

I agree with that. Global warming supporters/people are definitely ideologues!

Yeah - proud to be liberal and hope to be good.

 

It's a great trick to actively sponsor any denier and yet if that sponsorship is mentioned to be able to claim prejudice. Well I have met more than my fair share of oil-co board members and CEOs (incl one of the Kochs) and because I am white, affluent, suited and booted, and work in shipping they wrongly assume that I want to protect the status quo by obscuring the facts, denying the truth, and throwing spare change at any fool who is so blinkered to believe their lies; my knowledge of the lengths that the elite will go to in order to protect their cushy lifestyle is first hand.

 

 

 

It must be relaxing to be so certain in your convictions that you do not even need to check facts, understand the situation, or take any notice of actual reality. One of the benefits of being supported by the facts is that when we all say the same thing it is because it is the only valid answer - whereas when you are completely wrong and spout the same things outside observers know that you are merely parroting the latest dogma. I am willing to be judged by my peers and by history and as such I will act on the basis that the scientific consensus is correct.

Exactly what facts are those concerning the original post are you speaking of? I actually have said very little in this set of threads. Other than pointing out the obvious concerning you liberals.

So exactly where did I construe my one question. Which was simple to understand. Here I will repeat it in bold letters and a color. Perhaps that will help you see the word/question for what it is.

Censorship?

Hope that helped.

As far as oil goes. I really do not need to know who you are dealing are with, or even how you dress. I do want to know how you are going to stop the big evil oil mongering anti-climate republican. But all I have seen are complaints and portrayals of victimization. Not exactly progress! Nor logic! Heck, you guys could not even get my question right. John used it as a statement, rather than the question it is. It cannot be that hard to understand.

You speak reality. I would recommend taking a break and looking at yours. Since both the continuity and progression of your reality is seemingly lacking.

Also what dogma am I parroting? You admittedly and openly claimed you are a liberal. As such our viewers can take that at face value. Especially towards your commentary and views. I am quite happy to share the liberal thought frame.

I will be happy to help coach you along in your complaints and victimization roles. To help you reach the goal you have in mind!

John, I never claimed censorship. That was the answer given to the question the OP gave. The answer was also a question, not a statement. I see you did not differentiate between the two.

As to faulty logic. If your misinterpretation equal me having faulty logic then I am 100% behind that assertion. Considering where that view came from.

Also, in your statement above, who is exactly "WE"? You are saying there is a group? Or more than one? Considering your own words I could make it a point that what I wrote of liberalism is accurate. Thanks to your own statement.

I am grateful to show other viewers the limited almost hive like thought of the profoundly misunderstood ego driven liberals(or supporters of liberals) who inhabit this site. Your own statements make it easy.

I am glad we can have this conversation.

 

Wanting politicians not to spread lies merely in order to boost their campaign donations from Koch Bros et al? No; that's not censorship.

 

Wanting those who form public opinion and have the ear of the press to rely on evidence and the rational investigation of facts rather than gut instinct when making a scientific statement. Not censorship.

 

Wishing that a vital discourse be non-partisan and directed to solutions not a never ending argument over veracity? Nope - still Not.

 

Hoping that we aren't the generation that for years to come will be blamed for knowing about the problem, understanding the solution, and failing to act because we are self centred, intellectually bankrupt, and arrogant? NOT CENSORSHIP

The above quote is FULL LIBERAL GOODNESS at its best! Please feel free to take it all in! Koch Bro's.. lol!! Talk to a elitist, oops, I meant liberal. They will profess the same thing. In fact in most cases, liberals will use the same quote above VERBATIM.

Now Imafaal, when you can give a good response rather than a programmed agenda driven one. Feel free to actually answer. Until that point. I will presume you are just following liberal drone doctrine/conjecture. Any response that includes Koch bros in the first sentence is reason to be wary.

Yeah, you lost me when the first sentence included Koch bro's. Which makes whatever is written below it as nothing more than agenda driven drivel!

Just when I have hope for the progression of the United States, I read an article like this,

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-denies-climate-change

Censorship?

I'm amazed every time this is an issue. I can't help but feel just a touch of pride living in a country where, should the same thing happen, the headline would simply read "Michael Sam drafted in the last round". And that is if there would even be a headline. After all, are last round draftees really that exciting?

 

Also, public kissing can be just as sweet, and just as over the top vulgar, regardless of the genders involved. It doesn't matter if I see a same sex couple or a straight couple kissing - if their tongues are cleaning the other one's larynx - get a room!

 

Edit: To clarify, I also don't have any problems with people showing affection as described in the OP (haven't seen the actual kiss myself), as long as they don't go overboard.

Exactly the point. The media sensationalized Sam and his lover kissing. More than the actual significant story of a openly gay man being drafted in the NFL. I agree with you concerning public kissing. It does not matter what type of couple it is. Over the top is over the top. Which I understand makes news stories.

Just as with the transvestite story. Media sensationalized that Conchita is a trans. More so than actually winning Eurovision.

Like I stated above. Bad state of affairs!

I did not misspeak.

Actually you have. If when speaking you are including Asia, the middle east, eastern Europe, parts of Africa. Which is what you stated when you said "WORLD". You misspoke in a big way. As I said exaggeration. You dont have to like what I said. As I noticed with the negative point. But honest is honest and exaggeration is exaggeration! Sorry!

The question is what is the world going away from and the answer is bigotry.

World is a big place! Please refrain, you probably meant "the west". Which would be more appropriate. Otherwise you are just giving zealous exaggeration.

Almost as bad as the transvestite with the beard winning the Eurovision contest! http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/eurovision-2014-final-recap-conchita-3523443

What is the west coming to? Pretty sad state of affairs!

That's assuming Putin is a psychopath, hell bent on taking all of Ukraine, no matter the cost.

 

 

 

Heh, John that is the majority of leaders. Psychopaths seem to run the majority of countries world wide. Also Psychopath is a very broad definition to stereotype with. We may even have a few who frequent here.

Here is the reason Rand Paul will most likely win the presidency if he runs. Or in the least, one of many reasons! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html?_r=0

and why Hilary will be a token candidate.

You asked two questions.

"you would believe that those that pray like that look down upon people who do not pray?"

and

"A bias perhaps?"

This is a discussion forum.

I answered them.

 

In reply to

"Is that some scripture?"

yes- sorry, I thought that was obvious.

"do you take biblical words at face value as truth?"

No, I think they are often farcically wrong, but I realise that some other people do believe them. I'd imagine that group of people include those who would "look down upon people who do not pray"- not least because their scripture (I cited some bits) tells them to.

 

 

Re.

"My statement to Phi was just that. It was to him."

Assuming your system is set up in the same way as mine, if you look at the top of the page there's an icon of an envelope.

That's the system for sending an individual a message.

The rest of the page is a discussion forum.

People may choose to comment on stuff posted here.

 

I'm curious; what message did you think I could have been preaching?

Thanks, forgot the rules for this place on the net.

So you believe because scripture the christian use is reason for them to look at others with discriminant view? I think it goes both ways from the looks of what I see here. I am not supporting either side.

I was reading a article on why the supreme court were in favor. According to what I read, it was based on the constitution. I do not remember where the article was. Even looked up my "History" to find it. I notice if you are godless or if you believe in such. The discriminant view applies to both sides. My own faith prevents me from siding with either . Its better to just watch!

Perhaps the godless and the god bearing can find a common ground. Would make life much simpler. Would not have such articles as this being so important. My personal belief is you have two groups of people who have expectations that are in conflict. The point being,expectations are the reason for the conflict.

Another aspect of life has the same conflicts. Marriage .

I think I will see how much farther both sides are willing to go.

As to the preaching statement. I was not sure if it was preaching or not. But it looked like something a preacher would say. I avoid them like a plague . Just for that reason!

That's not a bias; that's just reading what they say they believe.

 

 

". If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."

"Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us."

"You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly."

 

Or were you asking about their bias?

Exactly what are you talking about John? Is that some scripture? If it is, do you take biblical words at face value as truth? I am not well versed in christian scripture. Is that meant as some form of insult or argument? Or some form of correlation I am missing?

My statement to Phi was just that. It was to him. There was or is no underlying purpose. Going out a bit far on that one. Besides, none of us need to be preached to if it was. Which is exactly what your response seems to be.

Democrats are milling behind Hilary. It will be Rand Paul vs Hillary Clinton. Hillary will most likely lose. Considering Rand has support from areas that are traditionally heavy democrat. This includes the heavily liberal area of silicon valley. To get that backing alone is a accomplishment of greatness for any republican. Besides the dislike of democrats currently regardless of mainstream media. Hillary will have a very difficult time. Mostly due to this current administration. If it were a republican president in office right now. The gallows and hangman would be a daily event.

Most of these types of prayers are for their god to guide their decisions. I'm always quite a bit leery when legislators in a republic with a clear distinction between church and state call upon the supernatural to perform their secular duties, but I don't know that they're using this connection unwisely. Leaders who have their fingers on the button should NEVER be thinking they're doing what their god wants them to. I would hope political decisions could be made more rationally.

 

I think even hard-core Republicans blanch at thinking how close Sarah Palin came to being POTUS when they hear her talking about Armageddon the way she does. You just know that if she launched our nukes, she'd claim it was God's will.

 

In most cases this prayer before the council meeting is probably harmless, but the potential for corruption is great. People who pray like this in non-church settings tend to think those who don't pray want the opposite outcome, rather than that they just don't practice a faith ("You refuse to pray for our solider's safe return? Why do you want them to die?").

So Phi, you would believe that those that pray like that look down upon people who do not pray? A bias perhaps?

Also if Sarah Palin came to being POTUS I would probably move to another country. Our media had a field day with such a target.

Thought this would be a interesting debate subject. Was talking to my friend in the UK. He laughed pretty hard and told me that it should be expected as the U.S is full of religious zealotry. Of course I replied in kind. But it seems that perhaps religion plays a role. At least the Supreme Court thinks so. Here is the story http://www.wtop.com/319/3616345/High-court-ruling-favors-prayer-at-council-meeting

Do you believe prayer should be allowed before a meeting of government officials? Does prayer affect you in a significant way whether pro or con? Do you believe the supreme court was right on its decision? Just a few of the questions that interest me. I personally am impartial of the decision. As someone praying does not bother me regardless of religion. For me I am on this planet for a short time. We only live this life once(As far as we know). So someone praying is not really going to bother me. In fact, I encourage prayer if it results in a positive outcome for that person doing it. Or is in general positive towards me.

What are your views of this decision?