X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
Winstonfield_Pennypacker Member Profile  Member Since: 2008-06-27 Last Power Points used: never • Available: now Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now Comments |
Navigation
Member Stats Rank: no rank yet Rating: 
0 star pointsVotes Cast: 3 Comments Posted: 555 • browse Comments Applauded: 2 Profile Views: 2502 Highest Ranked Comments |
Videos Submitted by Winstonfield_Pennypacker
My point is, there ARE clear, ironclad protections to the "traditional marriage" crowd's rights - in the US constitution.
If Fox "News" Channel wanted to report actual news they'd be directly involved with local stations.
Tho not surprisingly, Fox News Channel and 20th Century Fox (the sister company which controls all those local stations which fall under FCC regulation) are two seperate entities.
Murdoch and Turner(CNN) and Rogers(MSNBC) set up their "news" networks this way so they could have color commentary and opinion hosts because that drives ratings.
It doesn't earn Pulitzer awards tho..
Nonetheless, to say because CNN and MSNBC aren't true journalist networks either - and then somehow lump in everyother news outlet =/ - that it's okay for Fox News to straight up LIE, doctor pictures, and rally the neo con fringe into such a frenzy that they kill police officers and ob/gyns is a terrible argument.
Cnn sucks. They only talk about twitter now. Not the scrolling stories at the bottom of the screen.
Msnbc sucks. They don't cover Obama's or Dodd's or Frank's faults or inconsistencies.
Fox "News" is the worst. They lie, cheat, purposely exaggerate, shout down their interviewees, endorse violence, war, racism, bigotry and outright hatred of anything not stamped 'Fox Approved'. They then attempt to call themselves fair and balanced.. and try to sue you if you say otherwise.
Now I know all that text was pointless because it doesn't test your faith in your beloved bizarro world view. But if you consider yourself an objective viewer/citizen you'd realize that not only is Fox "News" extremely bias in it's "reporting" it's hurtful to the greater public interest of unity and honesty.
The Public Option will force insurers to compete, and actually provide affordable coverage or watch as their clients flock to the option that DOES. Take a look at health insurance industry profits in recent history and tell me they are really "competing".
The Public Option will force insurers to compete, and actually provide affordable coverage or watch as their clients flock to the option that DOES. Take a look at health insurance industry profits in recent history and tell me they are really "competing".
In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Winstonfield - I am really getting sick of this.
Then give up.
Insurance portability would only hurt consumers even more.
Increased competition lowers costs. Isn't that what Obama is saying?
I'll bet large sums of money that if they came up with a GOOD idea - you know, one that would actually work - the Democrats would jump on it and make it pass.
I'd take that bet.
Look at every other industrialized country on the planet - they have massive healthcare programs
Well, for one thing the US ALREADY has a massive health care program. However, I reject "they do it so we should" justifications out of hand. European economies are inferior to the US economy. Why should we emulate European economic practices when their economic performance is demonstrably inferior?
However, for whatever it's worth, I have a tremendous amount of admiration for your poise and composure and for the intelligent way you present your point of view.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
But anyway, I wanted to ask which policies are neolib kook? Trying to pass healthcare reform? Is there something else? What is he doing that unpopular with normal every day citizens?
In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Obama is not NEARLY as liberal as we would like him to be.
Heh - I always get a good chuckle when I hear this. Seriously, Obama is the most liberal kook to ever hold the Presidency... And he isn't NEARLY 'liberal' enough for the kook neolib fringe.
Obama really is in a catch-22 when he listens to the kook neolib fringe. They are his core. The ACORN guys... The DailyKOS freaks... The AFL/CIO goons... The left-wing freak shows are his base. And to keep his base happy, he has to do stuff that is WAAAAAAAY out there to placate them. I mean WAAAAAAAAY out there. If he doesn't do these total whack-job, Dr. Insane-O, kook-fringe things then (as this vid demonstrates) his core of kook fringe flunkies start screaming bloody murder.
But Obama ran as a supposed 'centrist' who would govern from the center. He can't run his administration on a far-left kook fringe neolib ideologue platform. If he does, then he alienates every single independant voter, moderate, or blue-dog democrat who voted for him.
What Obama has actually DONE with his presidency so far is unequivocally left-wing.He has not governed as a moderate. He isn't even slightly conservative. He's a neolib kook and his policiies are all in that philosophy. Because he is such a left wing radical, he's alienating the bulk of his supporters. Moderates & Independants drank the Kool-aid in the election. They really thought he was a moderate. They're alarmed that he is such a slavish left-wing kook, and they hate what he's doing. His numbers reflect the fact that Obama's neolib platform is unwanted and unpopular with normal, everyday citizens.
But they aren't left wing ENOUGH for the neolib kooks - so he's losing support among even THEM. He's 10 points away from being George W. Bush. Almost feel a little sorry for him.
Well - you may like him but this video gives no cause to do so. 1. He makes a generic claim ('everyone is going to pay less'). 2. He supplies only shoddy assertions and unfounded opinions to justify his claim (we're magically going to save 10%). 3. He ignores the CBO report that says the plan is will not save even 0.001% (let alone 10%)
Do you have a link to the CBO report? I can't find that one on the CBO web site.
I'm not saying you have an agenda, but a lot of what you say around here appears to attack the superficiality of anything liberal, and not really the meat of... well, anything, except that which you subscribe to. Granted you must have a reason for believing what you believe, but, myself, well, I subscribe to very little (including atheism) and haven't yet found a reason to believe anyone about anything. Just my observation, I may be wrong about you but am willing to hear your side of the fence.
In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
M'eh - nothing new here. This is just another in a long line of athesistic oriented strawman arguments. Personally cherry picking your opponent's point of view for them so you can knock them down is the laziest, most simplistic of methods. Yawn.
The reality is that atheists really kind of miss the whole point in the argument. I'm going to help all you atheists out for a second here. Accept or reject the assistance as you will...
The main problem with the atheistic argument is that they misplace their conclusions. The many 'problems' that atheists cite tend to be the foibles, mistakes, and misapplications of PEOPLE. And yet, athiests say that these problems mean that GOD does not exist. This is misplaced blame. Merely because followers make mistakes, misunderstand things, or are imperfect practicioners of their religions does not logically conclude that God does not exist, or that he is 'making' these people so screwy.
Most religions are more than willing to conceed that they are not perfect. The central tenant of many religions is that men are flawed and must follow after the higher ideals that 'God' represents (however clumsy the attempt).
So ultimately, videos like this are silly. They take the mistakes, weaknesses, and extreme examples of error that are inherent to 'people' and try to make the case that 'God' is wrong/bad/non-existent. They knock at religion in general, but offer no superior moral system to replace it. Real religion is the effort to improve the self. No atheist argument is going to be able to halt that effort.
In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can quote wiki and dictionary.com too if I wanted. Look up 'Nazi party' and 'Socialist'. That's who Hitler was. A socialist - like Obama. This fact is indisputable.
Regardless, I note the myriad instance of qualified language in your defintions. They're there for a reason. 'In theory'? 'Usually'? Your source acknowledges that the definition the term 'facist' is somewhat fluid depending on who you talk to. Besides, you're using different terminology than what I was discuss. This in an odious practice typical of neolibs. When losing a discussion on substance, change the terminology to give the illusion that you aren't. I was discussing the political comparison of Obama vs Bush vs Hitler. Politically speaking, there is no question that Obama and Hitler were soulmates on a far deeper level than Bush and Hitler were.
And I had to laugh at the “cult of personality is the cornerstone of fascism" bit.
In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well put, Gee. That really is the core of a lot of arguments between neoliberals & conservatives.
Conservatives understand some basic realities. (1) People sometimes do stupid things. (2) Nothing on Earth can EVER prevent #1. (3) #1 is a very small price to pay in exchange for FREEDOM. Conservatives accept this reality and try to minimize #1 as much as possible through personal accountability, responsibility, industry, and enlightened self-interest.
Neolibs do not accept this. To neolibs, life is about fairness. So when something bad happens, the neolib emotive reaction is that 'we' need to do 'something' to make sure it never happens again. But of course to neolibs, "we" means "you" and "something" means "massive, unaccountable, inefficient, ineffective government boondoggle". In the process they strip away personal and financial freedoms to try and assuage their sense of fairness.
Conservatives don't try to stop "#1". They do their best to make #1 as tiny an issue as possible by thier own personal decisions. Neolibs try to stop #1, and they do it by making it so people can't decide anything at all.
Uh oh Psychologic... You're daring to bring the taboos of logic, common sense, and reason into this discussion. That's going to get you labeled as a neocon. Get ready for it - because the neolibs won't stand for your simple, correct assessment of the world's capacity to generate resources.
One of the fundamentaal premises of the kook neolib left fringe is that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion. Look at this thread. It is filled to the brim with literal idiots who are talking all kinds of bull about stuff they know absolutely nothing about except what has been spoon-fed them by equally ignorant professors and media hacks. Check out this glittering example...
"Ideal population growth is as close to 0% as you can get..."
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Not only does this dingus believe that he knows what number of humams should/shouldn't be born, he also believes he knows what the Earth's 'ideal' population should be. Based on what math? None of course. It's just his opinion.
The neolib left is chock full of these kinds of psuedo-intellectual dipsticks. They go around spouting complete nonsense on topics they know sod-all about and perpetuate fallacies that any person with two gangelon to rub together can see are patently false at face value. But they LOVE this particular left-wing piece of idiocy (overpopulation) because it lets them engage in their favorite pasttime... Making stupid laws to take away freedom, control people, and limit happiness & prosperity based on junk science treated as 'fact' through no other virtue than faith and the psychological makeup of a lemming.
Late to the party but oh well.
Lets see: You bash "the kook neolib left fringe" for their baseless assumptions that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion, yet you take Psychologic's statement that "we could multiply the Earth's population many times over and still have enough resources for everyone" as gospel. Hmmm. Hypocrisy says hi!
Also, I love how you take Psychologic's assessment that "Infrastructure is the problem" and "The number of people involved isn't the major limiting factor." as "logic, common sense, and reason". Funny. I don't see any logic there considering the fact that "Wars, inept governments, and transportation costs" doesn't automatically exclude population as a significant contributor to famine. War = famine, therefore high population not = famine. Amazing logical inference there.
Hmmm. Perhaps when you say "logic, common sense, and reason", you're talking about Psychologic's claim that "Newer techs will help though. As cheap solar power matures there will be less dependence on power grids (eventually none), and manufacturing processes involving nanotech will reduce the cost of producing necessary items (eventually food too)."
What a prediction! The man must be a psychic or something! He knows in his heart that this "nanotech" thingy will be our salvation! What a brilliant scientific conclusion.
Seriously though, Psychologic's post is as full of bullshit as the posts that preceded it. It just happens to be your preferred flavor of bullshit. But hey, lets stick to the topic at hand here. I wouldn't want to bring something irrelevant such as politics into a discussion about population growth. Oh wait, you beat me to it.
And may I commend you on that wonderfully written diatribe against neolibs. It was definitely not full of your own opinion, and was instead nicely supported by facts, statistics, and science. I especially like the part where you called varietube a "dingus". I'd say something like "childish insults score no points here", but you already mentioned that yourself in your post to varietube below this.
Let me remind you of a quote of yours: "I simply find that I am - sadly - the only person on the sift who is able to provide this much-needed counterbalance in a way that is not inflammatory at its face value."
If your vitriolic rhetoric against neolibs wasn't inflammatory, then I don't know what is. You might want to start practicing what you preach. Unless of course, you feel like it's your duty to counterbalance all the "liberal idiots" on videosift with your own brand of shit.
Carrying capacity limits as a study have only held validity when applied to florae and faunae. Attempts to apply such mathematicaly models to human populations have not held up. The only thing that can be said is that there is currently 'debate' on the matter of applying the principle of carrying capacity to human populations. Therefore the assertion that ideal growth rates exist when populations reach a 'defined known limit' is currently speculation, not proof. Without actual mathematics to support the speculation, the debate becomes nothing more than balderdash.
I'm perfectly willing to entertain a discussion on the matter, but such a discussion can only be pursuant on the grounds of actual evidenciary proofs. So far I have seen no such proofs. I've seen only appeals to false authority ('everyone knows this...'), hasty generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. If you wish to discuss the matter further then I once again call on you to supply the math. If you cannot supply real, proven, peer-reviewed data then the matter is purely hypothetical on your part and subsequently holds no interest for me.
I'll give you another shot. It's up to you to accomplish something with it, or be dismissed. Keep in mind that childish insults score no points here. Such tactics say more about the caliber of the person using them than they do about the person they address.
An Ideal Growth Rate would only exist if population had reached a defined known limit in Carrying Capacity and had a sustainable source of resources at just that limit. Obviously not going to happen anytime soon. Even if it did, the balance would be disrupted. It was hypothetical in the first place, and still true.]
As a professional, you'd be better off figuring out why you haven't been able to contribute anything of value to the world even with a "career".
In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm a statistician by trade. I've done a few projects involving growth rates & economic trends related to them. As a professional, I would be very interested in hearing the precise, specific mathematical explanation as to why a country's growth rate should be zero when almost every economic model depends on a positive growth rate. Real statistics from real statisticans or economists please - no IPAT garbage from Erlich, Holdren, left wing blogs, websites, or opinion think pieces.
In reply to this comment by vairetube:
Congratulations! You have no idea what Growth Rate means related to the concept of Carrying Capacity.
Massive, massive fail. Moron.
Massive, massive fail. Moron.
I have a tendency to leave snarky and smartass responses. I use my navy time as the scapegoat. I'd like to apologize for my past responses and will keep my responses to you civil from now on.
Have a good day!
In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
You obviously feel a connection to the discourse on videosift... in a way that makes me think you are an alt of someone on here, or perhaps even the new BillO.
I am no one's alt. I enjoy watching videos. I like funny ones, old "Whose Line" clips, and other stuff. However, to my dismay, Videosift (and others) have been co-opted by far-left neolibs who use sites as an increasingly private sounding board for negativity towards anything they don't like.
Case in point. A solid 30% of the vids here today are liberally slanted garbage. Between Bill Maher, Olberman, Madcow, atheism/creationism threads, and so forth there are at least 5+ 'neolib' threads on the top 15 at any given time. A strange trait for a 'fair, tolerant, and balanced' population, eh?
These neolib threads are typically far-left screeds. They are vapid in content. They eggregiously violate logic. They are blatantly baised. Intellectually, they aren't fit for the dung heap, let alone the 'top 15' list. And yet there they are. Every day. And the comments are universally filled to the brim of what can only be described as neolib cheerleaders bleating about how great they are, and trampling any different perspective.
I lean conservative on many issue, but liberal on others. Above all I detest the practice of presenting only one very biased side of an argument and then acting as if it one has made a valid point. It is an odious tendency, that results only in stroking the egos of its participants.
Therefore I feel (occasionally) that there is intellectual value to injecting a reasoned, logical, non-profane perspective into a topic that would otherwise be the metaphysical equivalent of a neolib circle-jerk.
I simply find that I am - sadly - the only person on the sift who is able to provide this much-needed counterbalance in a way that is not inflammatory at its face value. QM is too profane and 'angry'. I prefer the cool balm of reason, logic, and common sense.
Seriously, go away.
Atheists are the largest minority and the only one that it's socially acceptable to discriminate against.
I think you just described 'Christianity' rather than atheism.
The majority of whites, blacks and Hispanics in America are Christian. Why would you say Christians are a minority?