Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 28, 2014, 07:20:51 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 593
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: WaPo gives glimpse into Hillary Clinton's paid speaking career on: Today at 12:11:33 am
It must be a slow news week in the Hillary-obsessed MSM.
2  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of Amish romance fiction on: Today at 12:03:37 am
Incidentally, Nathan (or anyone else), what is the Amish attitude towards novels? Are they considered "something new" and hence banned? What range of books to the Amish read, in general, besides the Bible and strictly utilitarian ones (such as trade journals, etc.)?
3  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Why did Paul Davis lose? on: November 27, 2014, 11:45:47 pm
Right before the election, a Dem operative was caught on tape listing off a bunch of towns in Kansas and calling them sh_tholes, or something like that. The typical self defeating elitist attitude of a lot of liberals.
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement Monday night) on: November 26, 2014, 01:56:35 pm
That's why in many countries, the police don't carry firearms. Alas, in the U.S. with our gun worshipping culture this is impossible.

Name them; because the vast majority of European forces do.

Off the top of my head, England, Japan and China. In China it's starting to change in some areas because of terrorist attacks, not because the police couldn't handle ordinary crime.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement Monday night) on: November 26, 2014, 01:48:17 pm
What's it matter whether Michael Brown was a "bad guy"? Even if he were, I've not seen any legitimate argument for why deadly force was in any way reasonable.

If he was trying to grab the officer's weapon, then it is reasonable for the officer to use deadly force to stop that from happening.

It's only reasonable because a gun is a deadly weapon in and of itself. If it's kill and be killed, then sure, it's justified to kill. If no firearm had been within grabbable range, then deadly force would not even have been in question. That's why in many countries, the police don't carry firearms. Alas, in the U.S. with our gun worshipping culture this is impossible.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement Monday night) on: November 26, 2014, 01:31:50 pm
This is getting crazy. Riots in nearly 200 cities? I get that there are conflicting witness accounts, but it's undisputed that the guy robbed a store and then assaulted a police officer. Aren't there any better poster boys out there for all this outrage?

All in all, this month has been very weird and not in a good way.
7  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: On Knowledge vs. Confidence on: November 26, 2014, 10:35:21 am
After a long time thinking through problems in epistemology, I guess I've settled (for now) on a kind of fallibalism.  We can garner various levels of what you're calling "confidence" in a belief or a "piece" of knowledge depending on our justificatory criterion and the strength of our evidence or degrees of confirmatory cognitions.  But there is nothing that guarantees that such a belief, though it may be reliably justified for the time being, might not be upset, confuted, supplemented or dispelled entirely by future experience or findings.  It may then be more or less justifiable to hold certain beliefs, or think one is in possession of knowledge about some specific things for the moment, but its possible we may find sometime soon or in the distant future that we were wrong.  We are in almost every conceivable respect limited beings, and so whatever we believe we know will also be limited and provisional. 

Yes, fallibilism is basically encapsulating the discussion above. The fascinating thing about fallibism, is that it seems true or not, depending on whether one is thinking of fallibilism or thinking of something else.

For example, a strong statement of the fallibilist argument might go as follows:
(1) The reasoning that leads to a conclusion (or justification) can turn out to be invalid if there is other pertinent reasoning out there that has not yet been considered.
(2) For any justification, there always might be pertinent reasoning out there that has not yet been considered.
(3) Therefore, all justifications might be invalid.
(4) Therefore, no conclusions can definitely be considered true.

(2) is extremely hard to argue against because to refute it, you would be trying to prove a negative. (1) is extremely hard to argue against for similar reasons- if you don't know what the other pertinent reasoning is, you can't really argue that it can't affect your justification. (3) and (4) follow from the rules of logic.

Of course, there are obviously thoughts for which no possible reason to doubt appear- for example, the statement "This statement exists." is awfully hard to refute.
8  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Steny Hoyer on: November 25, 2014, 06:31:43 pm
I don't see a problem with him.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement tonight) on: November 25, 2014, 05:39:59 pm
If you're going to riot and burn things, why would you do it to your own town?

It's not their own town. They don't actually own it. They don't own homes, they don't know businesses, many of them have to take public transportation. They don't pay property taxes. Ferguson, MO is just a place they happen to be stuck living in, not their own community.

That's why it's not that hard to imagine why people there would be so comfortable in destroying it.

They are destroying rented homes, rented businesses, and rioting on rented streets. No liability to them.

Its more than that...they still shop at these places, live around those streets, etc.

The same people destroying the walmart tonight are going to be mad that its not open for 2 weeks after this.



It's not really more than that. If anything, they are creating economic prosperity for themselves. Wal-Mart will now have to further increase holiday staffing to clean up the mess. Nobody has any reason to care about the cost of the damage.

Until they are given real stable opportunity to own businesses and homes of their own, nobody will ever care about the cost of the damage.

But will Wal-Mart keep open the shop up again, Ferguson have seen a large demographic change from 2000 to 2010, it has become blacker and poorer (and I doubt we see that will turn around with what Ferguson now is famous for), there is a major risk than many of these shops, will just close down and their owners open new ones other places.

The Wal-Marts and Little Caesars and AutoZones can afford to open up shop again and hedge the risk. It's the small businesses - including and especially the black businesses - that will not be able to recover.

Wal-Mart is the #1 destroyer of small businesses. The rioters are just accelerating the process of creative destruction.
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement tonight) on: November 25, 2014, 10:58:24 am
I'm 5'5 and would never consider fighting another 5'5 man (even 40% heavier) to be someone "bigger and stronger" even if it is technically true. "Fatter and heavier" is more like it. Brown was fatter and heavier. Ask me about fighting someone "bigger and stronger"  is more like me vs. someone who's 6'1, in my mind. You can't put it on the same level, someone who is the same height as you vs. someone who is six inches or more taller. Officer Wilson is 6'4 so he is probably used to dealing with shorter people 95% of the time, I don't think he really knows what it feels like to be physically intimidated.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby on: November 24, 2014, 07:02:15 pm
Quote from: politicus
The source is pretty irrelevant in this context, my point is there exists a similar narrative about Clinton (as serial abuser). It has been published before in other contexts.

That's true, I just thought the graphic was too ironic not to post. The site is obviously run by an active misogynist. The number of ironies in this are piled pretty high.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby on: November 24, 2014, 05:50:35 pm
Adultery is legal.  Rape is a horrible criminal act.  There's no way to say they're in any way morally equivalent.  

There have been a string of accusations about sexual assault or abuse from Clinton dating back to his student days (one "incident" in Oxford, one in Yale) and onwards. So there are clear similarities between the Cosby and Clinton sexual abuse narratives.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/09/27/bill-clinton-a-long-history-of-alleged-rape-and-sexual-assault/

This is the front page of "mofopolitics.com" right now:

13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Obama sinks Hillary on: November 24, 2014, 04:02:11 pm
He's just giving Hill Dog some good advice... don't coast on your reputation... reintroduce yourself to the American people in a new way. I'm not worried about this.

A new paint job?

Won't hide the mileage. Won't bring that new car smell.

Maybe it's more like scraping off that old crappy paint job that you never got around to, to reveal the better one inside Smiley
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Obama sinks Hillary on: November 24, 2014, 03:55:02 pm
He's just giving Hill Dog some good advice... don't coast on your reputation... reintroduce yourself to the American people in a new way. I'm not worried about this.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will 2016 be a Referendum on Obama? on: November 24, 2014, 03:53:17 pm
All of the above.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby on: November 24, 2014, 02:46:51 pm
Juanita Broaddrick's main issue was that she had sworn an affidavit that Clinton had not assaulted her before she gave her interviews. I am not passing judgment on what really happened, but I don't know how you explain that.

Easy. Bill/Hillary paid her off.

What's the evidence of that?

To be sure, if this becomes a major issue, I would categorize it within the realm of "selective prosecution." I know you can say times have changed, social media and yada-yada-yada, which is technically true. But at the end of the day the bottom line would be that a rape accusation that has never seriously harmed the career of the man accused of rape could end up being a blockage for his wife, who is trying to become the first woman president, and the hopes of millions of women behind her. The supreme irony, although by no means out of character for the way American politics treats women.
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is IceSpear going too far with the Hillary hackism? on: November 24, 2014, 10:55:58 am
Yes, he's definitely going too far.

All Hillary supporters must be so lukewarm, they think she should've been disqualified from being in the Senate and every other public office she's ever had.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby on: November 24, 2014, 02:04:32 am
The thing is, while most of Bill Clinton's affairs were consensual, there was one incident while he was Arkansas Attorney General with Juanita Broaddrick that really can only be construed as rape.

This incident really should have disqualified Hillary from being a US Senator, Presidential Candidate (2008 and 2016) and Secretary of State, because she knew about this and assisted in a cover-up to save her husbands career (and in any case, being married to a rapist should be a disqualification anyways).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm

Then why are you endorsing her?

I don't know what to think about the Juanita Broaddrick case except that if this was a credible story, why wasn't it fully pursued through the 1990s? In the Cosby case, it seems like new accusers have come to light, which is what is creating the reassessment; although some (if not all) of these accusers have been named in previous lawsuits. With Bill, as far as I know there are no unnamed accusers out there he had previously settled with.

I am not at all comfortable with what it is known that Bill did. It is precisely this type of issue why it ought to be a reasonable expectation that politicians who want to become presidents, governors, members of Congress and stars of their party, ought to do what ordinary men and women all over the country do every day which is to remain faithful to any spouses the have and not to use their power for sexual favors over subordinates. What if Hill Dog was in the GE, leading or competitive, and suddenly explosive new evidence came up of Bill's sexual harassment?

As we see, it not only has the potential to damage politicians (who cares? As one of the biggest Clinton supporters on here Ill say I don't give a sh* about them personally) but more importantly the millions of people who have their hopes and needs tied up in them, whether it's the sick person who needs health insurance subsidies from the ACA, the boy who doesn't want to see his patents deported,nor the young woman who needs an abortion, or just supporters such as myself and others-- are all hurt by this behavior.

I hope Bill is clean but I agree this is a potential vulnerability for Hill dog.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: RIP Mayor Marion Barry on: November 23, 2014, 01:24:28 pm
He was actually a pretty cool guy until the 1980s; his problem is that he wasn't ready for the huge success and power (for someone of his background) he found himself with.
20  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: In 50 years... on: November 22, 2014, 11:36:03 am
One would hope it would be reduced (as it should) to 15 or 16. Unfortunately we seem to be moving in the opposite direction, so I would wager 21.

Precisely. When I was 15 or 16 I was just as smart as I am now at 30. Less knowledgeable, sure, less experienced, sure. But no less smart. However, we should take into account brain science; with the caveat that, just because the brain has not finished changing does not mean it has not reached a point of autonomy.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NSA reform bill goes down in flames on: November 22, 2014, 10:20:03 am
Also, even if the Patriot Act does expire, the NSA still can use its authority indefinitely under "existing investigations", some of which are general in nature.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NSA reform bill goes down in flames on: November 22, 2014, 10:03:48 am
I highly doubt Rand voted against this because of cowardice. Ted Cruz voted in favor so it's not like he would be attacked for it.

Rand voted against it supposedly because it didn't go far enough.
Which is of course a load of bull. He did that because he doesn't want to get attacked in the Republican primary as being "soft on terrorism".
Except that, a) Ted Cruz voted in favor of the bill (did you even read my post?), and b) as I've already pointed out, this bill would extend the Patriot Act's expiration date by several years but would supposedly protect civil liberties by "hiring privacy advocates." That clearly isn't a worthwhile trade-off to anyone who cares more about civil liberties than making it seem like Democrats actually give a sh**t about the government spying on people.

Also, this disingenuous bill was opposed in the House by Justin Amash, so unless you think him and Rand Paul are part of a libertarian conspiracy to support government surveillance, there are clearly principled anti-surveillance reasons for opposing this.

a) EFF supported the bill. I suppose they're disingenuous about privacy and only care about marketing? b) If the Patriot Act isn't extended anyway feel free to pip me on this a year from now
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb launches exploratory committee! on: November 21, 2014, 05:05:18 pm
Lol. All of Hillary's actual electoral opponents have been too irrelevant to bash except for Rudy Giuliani in 2000, John Edwards, Barack Obama. Most here were too young for the 2000 Senate campaign. The worst that could be said about John Edwards at the time was that he was a hypocrite. And some of us actually liked and still like Barack Obama.

As for Webb, we're only talking about him because there's nothing else to talk about. I'm not sure pointing out that there are anybody But Hillary people out there who will automatically flock to any candidate who opposes her constitutes "bashing" Webb. He's not a bad guy, he's just not a good fit for the nom. Wink
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC Poll: '2016 Field Is Crowded -- and Mostly Unpopular' on: November 21, 2014, 02:46:16 pm
Precisely. Hillary's problem is that her favor-abilities go sky high when she's humiliated or seen as a victim (1998, 2008), but if she actually comes close to success or power (2000, 2007), her favor-abilities drop.

There are two exceptions. The first was when her husband was first elected in 1993. The second was when she served in the Senate in 2003-2007.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 21, 2014, 01:32:15 pm
I was responding to King's "strong presidency" hypothetical.

If I wanted Obama to knuckle under, I would not have supported ACA. That is proof that the legislative process can work.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 593


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines