toastywombel

Those who say deplatforming doesn't work and it instead only amplifies the public sentiment who are in favor of said persons being deplatformed, I would just like to point you to Alex Jones. A perfect example of how deplatforming someone does infact work. Since being deplatformed Jones has had a considerable drop in influence and money. Which I think is a good thing. 

Now the monopolistic practices that lead to the vast majority of public internet communications to be content controlled by a few companies is problematic. Also the undemocratic means in which this content is regulated and monetized is also problematic, but these I feel in order to prevent companies like twitter and facebook to be the arbiters of truth in social media, breaking them up by using existing anti-trust and anti-monopolistic laws is a better way to do that. I find many of the people who get upset that conservatives get banned from youtube and twitter are also the very same people who support politicians who allowed those companies to have so much power in the first place, and they don't care about the power dynamic instead they care about the fact those companies are attacking their politics. Typical "i dont' care about an issue until it personally affects me" conservatives and free marketeers.

It is a weird dynamic seeing so many conservatives attack these companies disingenuously from the left, calling for them to be broken up. Especially Tucker Carlson types, Some don't remember his old days on crossfire, back then he was a 100 percent Greenspan marketeer, now hes some populist. Its also not in the pursuit of better working conditions for workers or fairer and equal pay, its about "I wanna be able to say what I wanna say to make money off people".

BTW first post here in like better part of a decade so hello all lol.

The recent news of gravitational waves is quite a big turn of events.

I'm curious about the implications on the randomness of quantum information in space time. As larger objects that operate under relativity seem to follow the calculations exactly. I am wondering if quanta operate differently as they are effected by a greater than 0 constant in background gravity. Much how the surface of a body of water produces waves if there are items moving around on its surface. One could imagine that a spec of dust on the surface of this body of water would be much harder to measure, and its positional change over time relative to an observer would appear much more "random" for the observer.

I guess the staple principle is that the differences in measuring at the plank scale general physics and quantum mechanics has to do with the fact that quantum mechanics calculates for randomness of a certain degree, and that degree of randomness is caused by the fluctuations in space time by all the gravitational events that proceed throughout the given system and in this case the universe.

Space time is more like a churning ocean, and not so much like a flat pond. Therefore very small objects on the surface of space time are more greatly effected in position constantly by a greater than zero gravity background. One could almost say gravity radiation.

Thoughts? Hopefully I articulated my point clearly.

Both simple and wrong given the actual history here, especially during the last decade or so (at least for science and tech, but frankly it appears that Republicans don't really want to fund anything other than military lately, and even there they are failing with veterans and veteran benefits once they return home).

While I agree with your overall point iNow and respect your knowledgeable opinion. It should be noted that some of the money that congress allocates for military expenditures is used for scientific research. (Of course usually its scientific research limited in the scope of providing a military advantage).

But I think it should be noted that military spending has brought about significant scientific advancements, however at the same time those advancements could have been achieved through other conduits than simply military research.

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

Where did you hear that many billionaires are leaving the U.S?

Also, how do you know George Soros is selling off his U.S assets? Furthermore, given the vast amount of investments he has, how do you define "U.S asset" in this now global economy??

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

I don't understand toastywombat, are you equating a fool with a conservative ?

 

Don' t forget conservative and liberal are just labels and although Phi for All may try to make one label more preferential than the other by assigning the extra label 'progressive' to liberals, I assure you that is not always the case. Many so called liberal policies are actually repressive or even oppressive.

 

Every young person starts off as a socialist and progresses through life becoming liberal and eventually conservative in maturity, as they learn personal responsibility and the value of their hard work.

As a result 'I stand by the fact that if I can spend enough time with a liberal, I can change their mind. Direct confrontation never works, plant seeds, keep the dialogue open'.

Wise words from a ( hopefully ) wise person, but sadly way off topic.

 

Okay I should clarify, when i say "conservative" I mean the current platform of the Republican/Tea Party, and those who support that platform and the answer is yes, that is a foolish position and they are fools.

To your second point, please then explain the fact that their are young conservatives and old liberals.

I also wonder if they truly would appeal to the center, or if (as others have already noted) the United States has become so far to the right overall that "the center" is still quite far away from the various positions argued for and espoused by Warren and Sanders.

I don't particularly believe that the United States voting populous is really that far right.

Now measuring this is hard next to impossible, considering a lot of it is terminology. (Conservative is a more appealing term than Republican or that Progressive is a more appealing term than liberal.)

That being said the demographics have changed so drastically in the last decade that I believe, unless the republican party does a major re-branding. They are destined to lose. Especially with their hard lined stance against everything good.

I mean the Republican party has literally turned into the evil party. . . . and it seems they have replaced their original libertarian philosophies, which at least hold some intellectual honesty with downright bull. . .

Furthermore with the continued advancement in age of our younger generations, myself included, who by the way gain their news from the internet, (Republicans don't have the stronghold on media as they once did) will continue to ensure the republican's demise.

Ignorance can only last so long. The advancement of mankind has a liberal bias.

However, that all being said, the Democratic Party is as easily corrupted.

I used to be socialist until I worked in the NHS emergency medicine after university. In theory socialism is great, who wouldn’t want to help the poor at the expense of the rich? I was a member of the socialist party and even got published against NHS privatisation. This all changed when I actually worked for the NHS.

 

Corruption is rife. Now there’s unfairness in capitalism. However, you have a choice of what product to buy and who to give your money to. With government schemes they take the money off you via taxes and spend it how they want. If you’re poor you won’t get equal treatment in the NHS compared to a rich person. Doctors use NHS resources for their private work. If you’re in purchasing you’ll buy computers for a higher price than on the high street but get a backhand in return, who cares it’s government money they say. They put cleaners and porters on zero hour contracts. They right up joke post grad degrees and mass sell them to the NHS. My friend did masters in medical research at Imperial (5^th in the world at the time) and for his stats they showed him how to use excel. His degree was a complete joke and he couldn’t use it outside the NHS. In my hospital the cardiology consultants got caught because they pushed for funding for an outpatient cardio clinic but they still saw their patients in the hospital. They were double charging for their patients. If you double charged a patient privately they would know about it but because it was NHS they got away with it for years.

 

When Milton Freedman crunched the numbers behind government funding in universities in America he realised that there were so many upper middle class kids going to university and so little working class kids that the upper middle class were getting the money back they paid by taxes but the working class weren’t. Therefore the working class were paying for the upper middle class’s university education via taxes. Again government funding for universities is a nice idea but it does the opposite of what it’s supposed to do.

 

 

In my experience, recent economic findings and history (Russia) as have prime examples of how socialism benefits a few people by forcing the rest to part with their money. The thing that rubs salt in the wound is that they do it under the guise that it’s government so they are doing it to help the majority of the people.

The amount of anecdotal evidence to support statements is just ridiculous. Maybe when I have enough time I will counter with a thoughtful response that is sourced and backed up by facts. Or maybe I can just wait for iNow to respond haha.

Finally I think this actually undermines the point you were trying to make

"In my hospital the cardiology consultants got caught because they pushed for funding for an outpatient cardio clinic but they still saw their patients in the hospital. They were double charging for their patients. If you double charged a patient privately they would know about it but because it was NHS they got away with it for years."

Furthermore, if you double charge a patient privately, the patient does not always know about it, because the patient's insurance company is charged not the patient directly. In case you are unaware this happens all the time. Hospitals routinely run up the bills they send to insurers and in turn insurers forward the costs to their customers. Hospitals do this because of the combination of medical costs, pharma costs, and the cost for doctors.

Finally since you dipped into the grab bag of Milton Friedman, here are some other grand ideas he advocated for. Just to kind of give some credence to the expert you mentioned

"Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax, and education vouchers."

"A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." He did however add this caveat, "Let me emphasize that this note is not a plea for a return to a gold standard.... I regard a return to a gold standard as neither desirable nor feasible—with the one exception that it might become feasible if the doomsday predictions of hyperinflation under our present system should prove correct."^[48] He said the reason that it was not feasible was because "there is essentially no government in the world that is willing to surrender control over its domestic monetary policy." However, it could be done if "you could re-establish a world in which government's budget accounted for 10 percent of the national income, in which laissez-faire reigned, in which governments did not interfere with economic activities and in which full employment policies had been relegated to the dustbin..."

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

I think that two political parties are fine, as long as their are limits on spending and fundraising by all parties and candidates.

Also Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will never win.

 

I think the danger mirrors the tea party actions: you win the primary because the far(ther) left comes out in droves and you beat more moderate (center/right) candidates, but it's not enough to win the general.

True, however I don't think the Democratic party is quite as radical as the republican party at this time. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is as left wing radical as Ted Cruz is right wing radical.

I am a market socialist as well. However defining terms mean really little when we have not done so much as to define them.

capitalism, as in unleashed capitalism or laissez faire capitalism is really outdated and terrible.

Social programs that are paid for cooperatively by the people through a progressive tax system are the aspects of socialism I support. They make the service available to all which benefits society, and it also makes the service cheaper per capita, provided the government is not corrupted by the influence of money.

Infrastructure (roads, communications, etc)

Healthcare (at least a level of healthcare)

Care for the poor

Education (higher education should be made available to all willing citizens)

Emergency Services

Military Services

Prison Systems

Furthermore public investment into new ideas is something that socialism brings to the table. Technologies and endeavors which may not yet be cost effective, however their benefits still outweigh their costs in the long run, is something only the public sector can do, as the private sector is consistently trying to make a profit.

(NASA)

I've finally got he chance to come back to this.

Incendia, I know that you have never held a managerial position, but have you ever actually had a job? You seem to have no idea as to how a business works at all.



Firstly "all profits" do not go "straight to the manager". A better description is that after wages, taxes, building expenses, superannuation, loan repayments and any other sundry disbursements whatever is left goes to the owner, which is then taxed. While profit sharing on a pro rata or performance basis does increase the incentive to perform, an automatic eligability does not. Automatic eligability encourages people to do the minimum possible while still being eligable for their cut.

Secondly the characteristics of a good manager are many, ability to motive, ability to set and achieve goals, ability to make decisions, etc. "Ability to make friends and be popular" isn't on the list. Managers need to do their job properly so that the business survives, if decisions are made with an eye to the next election then hard decisions will be avoided (or at best delayed) and the business will fail. I've continually found that those who advocate for election of managers are historically clueless about the actual duties and function of a manager.



This shows you know very little about actual business. The owner might indeed "hog any profits made", but he or she is also the one who came up with the idea and was willing to take out a second mortgage on his home to give it a whirl. He or she has often risked everything to set up the business, it is therefore fair that they reap the benefits commensurate with the risks they have taken. Or are you saying that those who risk nothing are entitled to the same share as those who risk everything?

This is all the biggest load of hog wash with no data or anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up. I could look up a bunch of stuff that I have before, like the fact that their are democratized work places that thrive, or that most research shows that when employees are paid more they perform better. . . .

But of course I'm just one of those guys too who has never held a managerial position and doesn't have a job . . . .. Unless you include being the Leasing Manager an apartment complex that has 2044 units and brings in about 2,500,000 in rent every month.

Finally, the fact that the owner should reap all the benefits because he takes all the risk? What about the employee that could go work for Giant Corporation A instead decides to work for your company that was started by taking out a second mortgage and all that jazz, shouldn't he be rewarded. Sounds like his risk would be just as great, especially considering he doesn't have the capital available to him that the owner of the business you cited as an example does.

The entrepreneur is nothing without the consumer, when the CEO's gut their employees (the consumer) they only end up screwing themselves in the long run. It starts with the demand. Always has always will. 10,000,000 will have more consumer power in the hands of 1000 people as opposed to being in the hands of one.

That ticket would lose in the primary, in 2016. However it is obvious that the political landscape is shifting leftwards in the Untied States. Possibly 2024 Elizabeth Warren could win. But Bernie Sanders is a self proclaimed "socialist" no way he would make it through the vetting process, nor do I think he would want to be a vice president.

I really think that it will be tough next to impossible for the GOP to win the president if they continue their current platform, only way it happens is if they elect a libertarian-esque candidate. The tea party republicans and traditional GOP just polarize the majority of the electorate with their social platforms.

That all said, I think if Hillary runs, she wins.

Maybe after they fix income equality, E&B can move us away from winner-takes-all voting. I think 50-50 political races are harmful to the country as inaccurately representative of political creed.

I believe winner takes all voting is a good thing as long as terms, term limits and a balance of powers system is in place. The winner of an election needs some level of control in order to carry out his or hers agenda.

So if gays know that it will hurt,but still go to the parade,it turns out that they are not only gay but masochists?this is a joke

 

there it is told not only about Russia,I meant first of all Russia,and secondly that gays in most cases, not violence

Yes,it is possible case of violence there,but very few of them

 

 

 

and I laugh at your statement that Putin tyrant

look at the times of Joseph Stalin,there were millions repression

I understand-tyrant

 

Here in the times of Putin's you about 10-20 people who have been persecuted from 150 000 000 Russians

You yourself do not laugh?what Putin tyrant-this is nonsense

and all these 10-20 people you know

In the times of Joseph Stalin there was just killing everything at once,and all these your 10-20 people live,and live better than many

If you want us to sit here and say the the Russian government under Putin is a beacon of hope and a good example of a model Nation. It is just not going to happen. While he may not be Stalin, he certainly is not running a very progressive government by any means.

Sure, it would be great if they wouldn't need it, and would simply be able to live their own lifes. But as long as people are hurting and killing them because their sexual preference, that's not going to happen. One can argue whether a parade is the best way to do it, but something needs to be done, which is even more apparent because of your statements in this thread.

Very well said

toastywombel

you also do not consider that Russia has all types of weapons of mass destruction

it is not only nuclear weapons,but also weapons of chemical,bacteriological

here's one terrible accident can be read

 

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

 

alkis,

I will not argue that Russia has these weapons, but the United States has the upper hand on Russia in any conventional ground war bar none. Furthermore, that war would never happen as I said earlier. It would be a cold war, one waged on the economic and geopolitical influence scale. One that the United States would also win.

I don't agree with the imperialistic nature of the United States at all. I will however say that the United States is probably the most powerful country that ever has been.

I use a translator ,I don't know why he writes offensive

I have nothing bad in his comments do not write

I think that their is a cultural/ language barrier between us, and unfortunately we cannot overcome that.

in the military definitely not,we are at equal or Russia ahead

the rest do not know,in my opinion your culture is much inferior to the culture of Russia,But this is only my opinion,not going to argue this

When I say that the United States has a cultural advantage I am not diminishing the cultural value or Russian Heritage or saying it is inferior. I am more pointing to the scope of influence the United States has culturally over the globe.

The motion picture industry, music industry, and the media in the United States makes much more money and has many more viewers than comparable industries in Russia.

Furthermore on the military aspect please. . . I will just list some numbers to make my point:

United States Military Budget 2010: $533.8 Billion dollars (plus 130 billion extra for overseas contingency operations)

Russia's Military Budget 2013: $90.7 Billion

Active Military Personal USA: 1.43 million

Active Military Personal RUS: 0.76 million

Total Active Aircraft USA: 13,683

Total Active Aircraft RUS: 1,218

Aircraft Carriers USA: 10 (plus 2 under construction)

Aircraft Carriers RUS: 1

Not to mention the Untied States has NATO and the fact that the United States has over 500 military bases throughout the world.

Again, as I said earlier. this is a silly point as a conventional war would not be waged between the two countries because both have nuclear weapons. However if you were to remove the nuclear weapons from the equation the United States and their allies have the ability to successfully wage a ground war against any Russian aggression.

I know English a maximum of 10-20 words

 

there is a matter of state security,of course when it comes to super important information can be anything

you look at America,there are no such cases?

they pursue Julian Assange , Edward Snowden and they would have killed them if you get to them,

the Americans hold Manning in jail for telling the truth

This is true to an extent. Would we have killed Edward Snowden or Julian Assange? most likely not. As the public outcry would be very drastic.

The difference in Russia is the reasoning and lack of any transparency, people in Russia would simply disappear. Not saying that there are not cases of that in the United States, but I think it is quite obvious that human rights violations are far more severe in Russia as opposed to the United States.

Russia will not go to war with America and America will not go to war with Russia. Mutually assured destruction surely would prevent that from happening.

If anything it will be similar to the cold war, except it would be even more heavily in favor of the United States. Back in the early/ mid 1900's some may say Russia had the advantage, seeing as there was a communist wave spreading across the world. Today it is much different. Ever since the 1980's there has been a capitalist wave spreading across the globe. Many of the former communist regimes are hardly communist regimes anymore. China for example.

The United States as a nation just has the advantage over Russia in almost every way one could gauge advantage: economically, militarily, culturally, diplomatically.

1.) Learn and understand how to be a people person. There is a science/ art form to being able to manipulate people.

2.) Manipulate the fools

3.) I stand by the fact that if I can spend enough time with a conservative I can change their mind. Direct confrontation never works, plant seeds, keep the dialogue open.

Well, I say once again that in Russia you may say that Putin is bad,for you it will not be in prison.

But you do it with dignity

criticize Putin please, but only do not mix politics and circus

if you behave like a clown, then go to the circus ,but not politics

In politics, behave as a politician

in Sochi Cossacks attacked riot pussy,there riot pussy no one is offended,and on this, no one is arrested

But those who attacked riot pussy Cossacks were arrested,and there opened a criminal case against them

 

because an attack not legally,and I support that,the Cossacks were not supposed to attack

and if Cossacks will be put in jail,it will be legally

I feel as if your understanding of the English language limits your ability to communicate your points. Correct me if I am wrong, I do not mean this in an offensive way but an authentic way. Furthermore, saying one should not mix "politics and circus" is too vague of a statement.

My two cents?

Putin is a stubborn, ignorant, elitist politician who has done nothing but to isolate himself from the free world. History will not judge him well, and his anti-gay, anti-west, anti-freedom decisions have done nothing but put Russia in a complicated position for the future.

As far as Pussy Riot? Sometimes unlawful dissent is needed to stop the unlawful actions of an unlawful government.

As others have stated, Save us from what?

Of course there are many issues facing our nation Rigney, but I suppose it might just boil down to what a voter prioritizes.

National Debt, civil liberties, taxes, scientific advancement, climate change, healthcare, jobs , the economy, and many other issues come to mind. What issues matter most to you?

Only after answering that question can the topic be properly established.

Personally I believe the United States seems to be on the decline, and in many ways humanity as a whole. Not to say we aren't going to survive, or that humanity isn't exploring new possibilities currently. However, the next 100 years will present us with some of the most difficult and large-scale problems possibly ever.

But Rigney my guess is that we would disagree on what exactly the problems are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aSGgpy7WU

Interesting interview. I think the politics of Ayn Rand, which were very unpopular during her day, seem to be picking up popularity at least with the right wing and corporatist thinkers of our nation. What do you think. I personally think her narcissism is just unbearable.

Freedom is an often overused and trivial term in our society. At least in my opinion. If one were to simply describe in its most basic sense it would be something along the lines of the following. Which by the way was provided by a simple google search "define: freedom"

• 
   
  
• the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
  
• exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
  
• the power to determine action without restraint.
  
• political or national independence.
  
• personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
  

Now while that seems real simple, it really is not. Freedom is not a realistic or tangible concept. And all too often the word "free" seems to be confused with the word "capable". Freedom to me should be limited to a concept juxtaposed to slavery or confinement.

It should be noted however, that the world does not work on the terms of complete freedom. We are confined to this planet for example. We are confined to being human. We are confined to sharing this world with other people. We are confined to a specific time a place at any given moment. We are confined to life, and we are confined to death. In so many ways we are not free.

This must be understood to come to the realization no man is completely or even mostly free. Everything everyone knows can be attributed to the work and/or the teachings of others. These are all examples how not only physical, but mental freedom are illusions.

Freedom to think, freedom to move, freedom to take positive actions for yourself and others are all good. However freedom to take actions to the detriment of others for one's own convenience or benefit is a perfect example of how freedom is not always the "a' okay awesomness" many conservatives make it out to be.

Freedom is important as to the points of free speech, free thought, and the freedom to provide for self. However, freedom can conveniently be used to avoid responsibility and practicality.

Finally on a side note JustinW,

Where people are starting to want government more involved in their lives because they somehow think that government knows best, or can do a better job, or that a government will listen to the people once they have that control. That of which have been historically false in most cases.

"Government" is not some all powerful being. The "Government" is made up of people, chosen by the people. Are you arguing that a group of people should not have the authority to force other groups of people or individuals to act for the benefit of all the people.

This is an example of how practicality and rationality trumps freedom. If we all have healthcare, we will all be healthier, if we limit pollution we all benefit, if we attempt to save energy we all benefit in the long run. And I value the given benefits to humankind over the individual freedom to purchase healthcare or the corporate freedom to pollute simply because it is economically convenient.

I suppose I just find it funny that conservatives like yourself seem so afraid of the government when it comes to setting mpg standards, or energy efficiency standards or God forbid, providing healthcare for the public. Yet I would imagine many conservatives like yourself are okay with the government arming and brainwashing millions of solders, police, and intelligence officials, tracking our phones, emails, and library records, and watching us through cameras, flying drones, and satellites to keep us "safe"

JustinW,

Sure I wonder how those wait times help cut those costs? There may be a couple of exceptions, but not many.

I simply abhor this argument. Generally, if there are less people in a system, wait times go down in such a system. The problem I have with the "wait time" argument in healthcare is it seems to imply the system is better if it serves less people, simply because the wait times go down.

If one wants to live in a country where every person has access to healthcare then the "wait time" problem should be solved through bolstering the medical infrastructure in the given country (Doctors, hospitals, specialists, and etc.). If one takes your argument, however, and wishes to solve the "wait time" problem with limiting access to healthcare for a significant portion of the population, it is simply saying that one prefers the convenience of a quick waiting period to get access to needed healthcare over providing for the society. And when it is put in that perspective it is quite a selfish stance.

In more simplistic terms. If a large portion of people in a given society could not afford to go to the store to get food, sure the wait time for those who can afford to go to the store will be lessened. But the ultimate cost would be a significant group of people starving in the streets. So the question comes down to this. Would you prefer a more convenient system at the expense of neglecting a large portion of society?

Furthermore, I don't think you understand that when you neglect a large portion of the society in such a way you end up paying more in other areas. When people cannot get access to needed goods, they don't simply just allow themselves to die. They go to the hospital, which they cannot afford and the government (your tax dollars) pick up the tab at a much more expensive rate. They steal, which increases policing costs. Thus violence rises, people will seek goods through unconventional means (illegal drugs/ narcotics), and/or you will pay for them to be taken care of in prison, which is even more of a cost.

An awesome read, McTeague by Frank Norris, can serve as a microcosm of this. The human condition degrades into an animal like state when such humans fall into poverty.

Many posters have presented much stronger arguments ahead of me in this thread such as iNow and Phi for All. And your response to them leads me to believe that you are entrenched in this position. So I have no delusions about you accepting the points I just made. I suppose I just felt the need to voice my opinion on this matter.

No not really, but the way you said "we are heading for a world where the wealthiest are in control" seemed to imply that it hasn't always been so. And maybe I said poor wrong. Maybe I should have said the slightly less wealthy? Or the "not so poor, but definately not the wealthiest"? I'm fairly decent at baiting an argument, but this was not the case. I was just pointing out how your assertion was wrong in my opinion.

My point, which may have needed to be more clear, was that power is being ever more consolidated to the wealthiest. Example the United States government and corporate power structure has more control over United States citizens and the land it governs than Napoleon ever had over France, or Hitler ever had over Germany, or Ivan ever had over Russia.

Name 2.

Many Native American Tribes did not believe in the concept of ownership, but it is your job to prove your point, not mine to disprove it. You said,

The wealthiest have always been in charge in every civilization

I simply responded by saying that would be impossible to prove.