iNow

For like the 27th time... Why are you trying to make this thread about me? Also, saying I "support" atheism is like saying I support "non-astrology." Since so many people know that astrology is completely bunk, there's no need to have a lable like "non-astrologer." The atheist label allows believers to dismiss critical examinations of their evidence free faith and instead circumvent the need to support these childish beliefs by saying, "oh, you're just an atheist... I know your type... you just haven't found god yet." Then, all challenges and criticism go unaddressed, and we continue chasing our tails. However, SFN is not a place for discussing religion, and I find it funny how you continue to attempt to steer the conversation away from substance and instead toward personal posts toward me. Whether you think I'm a bully or not is quite irrelevant. You have yet to contribute any legitimate on topic content to this thread.

Fannie and Freddie are private. No impact to tax payers. Once the government bailout is complete, THEN it will impact tax payers. But, there I go, reading what people ACTUALLY said and judging them on it. The difference with your analogy to Ron Paul is that your example with him were basic abstract principles, whereas with Palin it was a real world issue that she completely misframed.

I can't speak for Bascule, but it has pointed out that previous operational attempts at resolving the issue did not work, and also points out how powerful the Fannie and Freddie lobbies have been for the past decade. Among other things... I think I'm missing where you're going with this, Pangloss. The fact is that we're in rough shape, and trying to put lipstick on this proverbial pig helps nobody. It's not partisan or bush-bashing to speak about what is happening here authentically.

WTF are you talking about, pioneer? None of that is accurate, and you seem to be just making it up as you go. Here's an idea. Try sticking to evidence instead of speculation. If you do, you'll be wrong far less often.

And where are you struggling?

Main Entry: criminal Function: noun Date: circa 1626 1 : one who has committed a crime and been caught by the authorities, but who could not afford a better lawyer

I don't recall doing that. Can you provide an example where I stated I was objective? What I HAVE been doing is bringing up issues which concern me, and pointing out how every attempt at argument people have made (here and in the media) against those issues have focussed on attempts to ridicule, and have lacked content. Instead of responding with substantive rebuttals, the responses have been laden with personal comments and logical fallacies. I see a clear difference. I also agree with you that this thread has degenerated badly, and should like be put to sleep for a while. We can always start a new one the next time she screws up or lies or whatever else. I take your point. It's well supported, too. Perhaps that is a sign of my own bias. I see her as underqualified, mistaken on important issues, and too political and partisan to serve our country well. Yet, people are now more for McCain than ever because of his choice to put her on the ticket. That scares the shit out of me, and causes me to question that electorate we have in this country on a very fundamental level. Oh well. It really is too bad that the under-educated out breed the highly educated like 3:1. line[/hr] http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/ John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick. I think that some people may connect with this video, and may find it inspiring, but I see it as an example of the level of batshit crazy the rest of us who follow our existence using reason, rationality, and critical thinking are here dealing with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_1Eit0pxM H/T

What spin? Toward the end of last week, the US stock market declined precipitously. Within the space of a few days, we learned that unemployment is way up, more than nine percent of U.S. mortgages were delinquent or in foreclosure, the FDIC closed the 11th bank so far this year (two were closed in 2007, none in 2006 or 2005), and retail sales are down; on the international scene, yen carry trades are collapsing, and the People’s Bank of China (China's central bank) may have to turn to the Chinese Treasury for money. The above was just the opening paragraph of the following: http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2008/09/hows_that_economy_working_for.php How bad is this going to be? Impossible to tell, but here's a clue: From the normally measured Paul Jackson: This is no longer the worst mortgage crisis since the Great Depression; this is the worst mortgage crisis, period. From Michael Shedlock: In theory this is a bottomless sinkhole, especially in light of the fact that systemic risk will be increasing over the next 16 months (and probably beyond that). From Ben Bitroff: Tomorrow morning equities are gonna fly, especially financials... for how long, I can't even begin to predict. But one thing is for certain. The crash is going to be spectacular. According to this article, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie is just a band-aid: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arc1_32y8rcg&refer=home ... but maybe that's really one of those stories that are "viewing this as a positive sign."

A couple of morons have threatened to kill physicists over this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/07/brian-cox-calls-em-like-he-sees-em/ Thing is, as I’ve noted before, a handful of people with little or no understanding of the science involved claim the LHC might create a black hole or a quantum strangelet which will consume the Earth. These people are wrong. They are, however, scaring lots of other people because the press is eager to make controversy where none exists. A couple of crackpots make a ridiculous claim, it involves esoteric physics, a newspaper or online site laps it up… and thousands of people becomes terrified from something that physically cannot happen. <...> This is coming to a head now that LHC is about to rev up. In that article, it says that some scientists are getting death threats. Death threats! To people who are trying to understand the Universe! These scientists are like you, and they’re like me: they want understand things, to better our knowledge, to increase the human awareness of the entire nature of reality. And some people want to kill them. H/T - Evolving Thoughts http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/09/05/scilhc105.xml Scientists get death threats over Large Hadron Collider How goddamned dumb have humans become?

It probably won't remain here for long, but if you want to watch the movie in its entirety, it's at Google Video right now: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4577453851005069832&hl=en

Hi throng, They are not. Inertia is the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion, whereas c is a label indicating the speed of light, which cannot be overcome (or even fully reached) by any object with mass. C is just what we call a specific speed, just like red is what we call a specific nanometer range in the electromagnetic spectrum. I'm sure your base of knowledge will both expand and become more solid as you continue to read and participate here. Just FYI. Welcome to everyone who has joined.

I never countered the point you made that poll numbers have improved for the Republican ticket since the Palin choice, so I think we're both in agreement there. As you can see by looking back, I challenged your comment that "the only thing that's happened" was an improvement in polls. Again, you said: She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers. ...and I proved that assertion false by showing other things which have also occurred in addition to poll number improvement. So, why again are you trying to make this about me and avoiding substantive issues? line[/hr] Now, back to showing why Palin is incompetent and a horrendous choice for such a high office, she seems to have screwed up her talking points this past weekend. Her lack of knowledge on the economy is readily apparent based on this: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-confusing-com.html Saturday in Colorado Springs, Colo., Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, "The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help." "Too expensive to the taxpayers?" They're private entities. Though they're private entities ultimately backed up by the taxpayers. But the only way Fannie and Freddie are "too expensive to the taxpayers" is if you're talking about the bailout announced over the weekend. Which, it appears, she was not. So -- according to this aide, speaking on background -- Palin meant they are CURRENTLY too expensive. So, am I liberal for pointing out that she's already failing on a national stage and that her knowledge is barely adequate to make it through a small round of questions with the press? Golly... Even if I am, how does that change anything about her noticeably absent ability to lead our nation?

To be fair, kid, the only real answer is "zero," until conclusive evidence proves something different. You've admitted yourself that none of the data you have is conclusive, that much of it is bunk, several pieces are rough and extremely open to interpretation, and really until something more happens you're engaging in wish thinking. It really wouldn't be much different if you came here saying you believed in unicorns. I don't mean this as an insult, but instead as a reminder that you should find better evidence before coming to the conclusion you have. Enjoy.

It also shows how you can manipulate prices for or against personal favor. Interesting.

What I think bothers me more is how they've been repeating the claim about the jet on eBay in so many of their recent appearances and speeches. If it's clearly untrue, then why keep perpetuating a lie?

Actually, I replied to this statement which you also made in that post (as clearly evidenced by my proper use of the quote feature): She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers. So, when you show the context of my quote, and don't misrepresent me, it makes much more sense. Am I the only one who sees that waitforufo has yet to make a substantiated rebuttal? Am I the only one that sees that waitforufo is trying to make this about me to distract us from the questions I raised? Am I the only one who sees that waitforufo is not able to rebut the issues under discussion so instead goes on with continued appeals to ridicule and personal comments? Again, when did this become about me? Oh yeah, that's right, when you weren't able to counter my points about Palin with any actual content.

Evidence?

Gov. Palin directly effects the environment. They're calling her "karibu barbie" it's so bad. http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/index.html Wildlife activists thought they had seen the worst in 2003 when Frank Murkowski, then the Republican governor of Alaska, signed a bill ramping up state programs to gun down wild wolves from airplanes, inviting average citizens to participate. Wolves, Murkowski believed, were clearly better than humans at killing elk and moose, and humans needed to even the playing field. But that was before Sarah Palin took Murkowski's job at the end of 2006. She went one step, or paw, further. Palin didn't think Alaskans should be allowed to chase wolves from aircraft and shoot them -- they should be encouraged to do so. If those are too political, the sea ice is hot: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/the_other_arctic_sea_ice_loss.php

Okay. I'll take a political route then: http://scienceblogs.com/energy/2008/09/what_does_obama_really_think_a_1.php It talks about differences in Obama and McCain energy approaches.

Could you be any less specific?

Did you catch the special Charlie Rose did? It was pretty well done: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5331337021910564036&ei=2_OtSMepEJOGwgP5-4SJCQ&q=charlie+rose+bob+lutz

John - I'm only half paying attention right now, but IIRC the link you shared can be countered by this: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/temperatures-plummeted-in-2008.php This argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate. Climate is generally defined as the weather conditions averaged over a long period, usually around 30 years. One can not discern a trend in climate change by looking at small numbers of years, much less a single one. On top of that, this fallacious objection is using global temperatures in a single month, not even an entire year! An even cursory look at the graph above reveals the very noisy nature of monthly temperatures, even when averaged over the entire globe. The particular Jan07 to Jan08 drop used for this argument is indeed large, but it is by no means the only .... <more at link>

I was commenting on your use of the qualifier "All," and if I've misinterpreted your tone against bascule (though this seems unlikely) I apologize.

She also didn't sell her plane on eBay: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503722.html In fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the plane -- shy of the $2.7 million purchase price -- according to news reports at the time. Reynolds contributed to Palin's campaign in 2006. It appears that, as she promised during her bid for governor, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay, but there was only one serious bid, in December of 2006, and it fell through. The Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving her goal of ridding the state of a luxury item. But that hasn't stopped Palin, or John McCain, from implying -- or asserting outright -- that Palin sold the jet on the Internet.

What specifically are you referring to? You've quoted my entire post and responded with two sentences, one of which asserts that I've exaggerated something. Be specific. WTF are you talking about?