After the first half of the second debate ...
Dems support anti-Fa, MS-13 and rats. Dems today are worse than Jefferson Davis ... he would have supported continue legality of slavery, but never those "bath salts" positions. Prove me wrong.
"Before our party promises health care coverage to undocumented immigrants -- a position not even Ted Kennedy took -- let's help the more than 30 million Americans who are a single illness away from financial ruin. Before we start worrying about whether the Boston Marathon bomber can vote, let's stop states that are actively trying to curtail voting rights of citizens. And before we promise a guaranteed minimum income to healthy adults who prefer to stay home and play video games, let's increase the minimum wage and the earned income tax credit to the benefit of the millions of people who still work hard and live near poverty." - Rahm Emmanuel
Jews usually are smarter than Gentiles. Prove me wrong.
Meanwhile ... Delaney was the only honest person on health care. And he polls at 1%.
I noticed I was watching discussions about the upcoming 2nd debates yesterday where everyone was predicting that MIGHT happen. I decided that the predictions were completely useless since I would hear the discussion about what actually happened later today.
I didn't bother to actually watch them, though I am rather obviously politically-inclined. Why? Because I never pay attention to what politicians say during campaigns. They say anything, even the ones I like. What I do value though, is the analysis after the fact. And I'll wait a couple days for the analysts to think about what they heard.
Besides, I really don't care what 20 candidates have to say. By the time I get to vote in a primary to choose anyone, there will only be 2 or 3 left standing and I'll have to chose among them on April 28th. And before then, I will be looking to see what they have said and actually done about important issues to me in their past.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 04:21:59 AM
I noticed I was watching discussions about the upcoming 2nd debates yesterday where everyone was predicting that MIGHT happen. I decided that the predictions were completely useless since I would hear the discussion about what actually happened later today.
I didn't bother to actually watch them, though I am rather obviously politically-inclined. Why? Because I never pay attention to what politicians say during campaigns. They say anything, even the ones I like. What I do value though, is the analysis after the fact. And I'll wait a couple days for the analysts to think about what they heard.
Besides, I really don't care what 20 candidates have to say. By the time I get to vote in a primary to choose anyone, there will only be 2 or 3 left standing and I'll have to chose among them on April 28th. And before then, I will be looking to see what they have said and actually done about important issues to me in their past.
Yeah. I have not watched any of the 4, just read the "highlights" the next day.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 07:14:51 AM
Yeah. I have not watched any of the 4, just read the "highlights" the next day.
An interesting question would be which channels do you watch later for analysis? I will say that I watch MSNBC and CNN and read 'The Washington Post' newspaper.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 07:19:38 AM
An interesting question would be which channels do you watch later for analysis? I will say that I watch MSNBC and CNN and read 'The Washington Post' newspaper.
Your list is ... so YOU! Those are not ones I watch.
My daughter liked Cory Booker after the first pair of debates. Will be interesting to see how much she likes him after the second pair. That is the greatest "finger on the heartbeat" I could wish for.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 07:25:37 AM
Your list is ... so YOU! Those are not ones I watch.
My daughter liked Cory Booker after the first pair of debates. Will be interesting to see how much she likes him after the second pair. That is the greatest "finger on the heartbeat" I could wish for.
10Q! I am so me all the time.
Personally, I'm going for Joe Biden for the international and domestic experience needed, and to restore our international standing and alliances. I am considering Elizabeth Warren for policy ideas and that she might well set Putin down on his heels. And I want someone who can shove The Orange Menace out of office so that he can be charged with Federal crimes just because the jerk deserves it.
But there are months before the first party primary. I supported Clinton in 2006 until I decided (with difficulty) that Obama was the better of 2 really good choices. That might happen again.
I would still wish that Hillary Clinton could become President, but I accept that isn't going to happen...
You are really very conventional in your political tastes. Like a McDonald's addict.
It is way too early for any Independent to pop up. I have opposed the Dem party since 95, and it has gotten worse. Will vote for individuals or policies only ... like Obama in 08 and 12.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 07:39:02 AM
You are really very conventional in your political tastes. Like a McDonald's addict.
It is way too early for any Independent to pop up. I have opposed the Dem party since 95, and it has gotten worse. Will vote for individuals or policies only ... like Obama in 08 and 12.
Haven't eaten at a fast food place like McDonald's for years. But you are quite correct that I have conventional political tastes (to my mind). I want professionalism, experience, and informed thought in a president. And forward-looking. You don't make improvements by retreating to the past.
And if I understand you, good decision on 08 and 12... I would like to see a Republican I could consider. Bill Weld maybe.
I really wanted to see what candidates had to say about health care, and it was disappointing to see such disagreement, with so many including Biden, the front runner, wanting to continue on with some version of Obamacare. But this is inline with what I predicted when Obama and Max Baucus made it clear that they were committed to further entrenchment in a failed system, which I think is the main purpose of Obamacare; Specifically to put off Universal for a long as possible, and hopefully forever.
I agree with Cavebear that the words of politicians are basically worthless, but I don't think their body language is worthless, which made watching the actual debate worth my time, at least to some extent, but the only sincerity I thought I saw in that regard was from those who had nothing to lose and are about to be excluded from the primary process. Granted, I did not see the debate the night before.
I had to stream the debate which was very poor quality with an overlapping and re-lapping jerky sound track. At one point in talking about Obamacare, Biden use the words and sounds "is," "la," "mmm," and "Obamacare," and what came out in the cut up sound track sounded like he was talking about something called "Islamacare." The sounds merged so well than I thought Biden and just fumbled his brain and tongue, but then decided it was probably the sound track, which had been fumbling all night long, even worse than Biden himself. Don't misunderstand; I don't think Biden is worse than any of the others, but I don't understand why he's the front runner either. No one inspired me much. And Democrats need an inspiring contender more than anything else. Maybe the one that has the best bumper sticker.
And I keep thinking that guy that wants to give every American $1000/month is a plant trying to make the Democratic party look nuts, but I'd like to see a GAO analysis on that one, as well as on the various healthcare proposals. I heard a lot of numbers thrown around last night, but no one cited any sources to support them. They just had numbers that came from somewhere or other, and no one had any sources to actually attack an opposing plan either. It's like no one actually knows what anything is going to cost. And the most critical item is over looked; How much are the necessary increases in taxes for healthcare going to offset the actual out of pocket costs of our current private insurance? That seems to be excluded from most debates. I heard someone allude to that, but no one seems to have any data to show whether Universal is ultimately cheaper or more expensive than private insurance, which is really what matters, unless of course Universal is as bad as private insurance is now, but making it better should also be part of anyone's plan. That was not addressed very well last night either. Mostly it seemed to be about costs, which no one actually knows.
Overall, I think debates are not that helpful. What they do is give people a kind of first impression sense of politicians, and most of all, give people a sense of who they think is better, but as to whether they will be actual assets to the country, I don't think we can tell. Debates may be better than just a list of names of people with thumbnails of how they look, but I'm not sure about that either.
Quote from: SGOS on August 01, 2019, 09:21:41 AM
I really wanted to see what candidates had to say about health care, and it was disappointing to see such disagreement, with so many including Biden, the front runner, wanting to continue on with some version of Obamacare. But this is inline with what I predicted when Obama and Max Baucus made it clear that they were committed to further entrenchment in a failed system, which I think is the main purpose of Obamacare; Specifically to put off Universal for a long as possible, and hopefully forever.
I agree with Cavebear that the words of politicians are basically worthless, but I don't think their body language is worthless, which made watching the actual debate worth my time, at least to some extent, but the only sincerity I thought I saw in that regard was from those who had nothing to lose and are about to be excluded from the primary process. Granted, I did not see the debate the night before.
I had to stream the debate which was very poor quality with an overlapping and re-lapping jerky sound track. At one point in talking about Obamacare, Biden use the words and sounds "is," "la," "mmm," and "Obamacare," and what came out in the cut up sound track sounded like he was talking about something called "Islamacare." The sounds merged so well than I thought Biden and just fumbled his brain and tongue, but then decided it was probably the sound track, which had been fumbling all night long, even worse than Biden himself. Don't misunderstand; I don't think Biden is worse than any of the others, but I don't understand why he's the front runner either. No one inspired me much. And Democrats need an inspiring contender more than anything else. Maybe the one that has the best bumper sticker.
And I keep thinking that guy that wants to give every American $1000/month is a plant trying to make the Democratic party look nuts, but I'd like to see a GAO analysis on that one, as well as on the various healthcare proposals. I heard a lot of numbers thrown around last night, but no one cited any sources to support them. They just had numbers that came from somewhere or other, and no one had any sources to actually attack an opposing plan either. It's like no one actually knows what anything is going to cost. And the most critical item is over looked; How much are the necessary increases in taxes for healthcare going to offset the actual out of pocket costs of our current private insurance? That seems to be excluded from most debates. I heard someone allude to that, but no one seems to have any data to show whether Universal is ultimately cheaper or more expensive than private insurance, which is really what matters, unless of course Universal is as bad as private insurance is now, but making it better should also be part of anyone's plan. That was not addressed very well last night either. Mostly it seemed to be about costs, which no one actually knows.
Overall, I think debates are not that helpful. What they do is give people a kind of first impression sense of politicians, and most of all, give people a sense of who they think is better, but as to whether they will be actual assets to the country, I don't think we can tell. Debates may be better than just a list of names of people with thumbnails of how they look, but I'm not sure about that either.
First, thank you for the agreement about words. I won't push your agreement further than you meant. I do agree that there is some value is watching body language, but I have little skill at that, so I don't try anymore (if I haven't learned it at 69 years I never will).
Second, sorry the debate came through a bit garbled. That can be worse than not at all.
Third, with 20 candidates trying to stay in the top 10, there is going to be some contention. That's one reason I'm not paying daily attention to what any of them are saying. By the time I get to vote in my State primary, there will be 1-3 and I'll make my decision then. It's not like I could resurrect the 13th candidate I really liked.
Fourth, most of the candidates are supporting the AHCA, but adding voluntary like-medicare as an option. We'll see where that goes. I have private health care insurance and like it. And, BTW (to everyone) the Dems should consider that one of the things unions have fought for and won is really good health care insurance for their members. A Dem opposing that should be cautious. I think Biden understands that more than the younger candidates. Technically, it does not affect me, but I consider it for others when I vote. Yeah, I'm a real Boy Scout...
Fifth, giving the poorest people $1,000/month is just a support system we already have. Its not a new idea; we are already doing that with tax credits. I'm not bothered by that. I'm willing to help poor children be fed whether at home or school. This idea is not a real problem.
Sixth, yeah the large debates aren't really very useful for understanding the candidates. But (as the Reps did last time) the Dems have to have a winnowing process to remove the weaker and/or less funded candidates. It shouldn't be that way, but I don't have ny better ideas on how to do that. Do you?
Seventh (of Nine, LOL?), the basic question for the Democratic Party (of which I am a de facto member having been a Progressive Republican before we were cast out) is whether to go for an ideological nominee to satisfy their base or whether to go for a nominee best suited to beat Trump.
My personal opinion is that I would vote for nearly anyone best suited to rid us of Trump, as almost any of the Democratic candidates would be better. But I temper that with the hope the nominee could also stand up to Putin and Kim Jong-un. China is negotiable.
I can see Biden calmly refusing Putin and demanding a back-down from Kim Jong-un. I can see Warren doing that. I can see Harris doing that. I can't see them taking Sanders seriously. It's possible that other candidates might, but I'll want to see some proof. But the Soviets didn't take Kennedy seriously either, so you never know.
Sometimes presidents rise to the office. And even surprise you when they do. I think well of Truman, and (don't spread it around) Nixon and Reagan. Clinton did well internationally.
So, everything is still up in the air for me. I'm not buying any lawn signs yet...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 10:04:22 AM
Sixth, yeah the large debates aren't really very useful for understanding the candidates. But (as the Reps did last time) the Dems have to have a winnowing process to remove the weaker and/or less funded candidates. It shouldn't be that way, but I don't have ny better ideas on how to do that. Do you?
It's probably irrelevant because it's not going to happen, but I'd like to see free TV time for candidates to address the public one to one limiting their pitch to what they think they can offer. Then I can assess them on my own, instead of listening to one liar telling me the other liar is a liar. Current debates have a snappy confrontational setting about as useful as that old program Crossfire. Remember that idiotic diversion from years ago? Two sets of opposing moderators grilling two sets of opposing party members. That program, as like the debates, are/were noise to draw in conflict junkies to watch ads for hemorrhoid ointments, as near as I can tell.
Health care is hard. And a vital interest for the elderly (most of us here). Giving trillions to immigrants is a non-starter. You can reprioritize the existing budget to better support Medicare and Medicaid ... and develop better delivery than they provide (and much more competently than a borrowed Republican plan wrapped in Democrat rhetoric). But you can't have war and peace at the same time. Choose peace, then you can do more domestically. It may be objectively true, for instance, that the Canadian system is better than the US system, though imperfect as all systems are. But that is because Canada is peaceful, not war mongering.
I missed the live showings of the Democratic debates, so I tried to find them on YouTube and...of course. The media, instead of focusing on the issues and giving each candidate equal time to give their perspectives, they instead focus on two candidates, arguing back and forth. I hate the ways these debates are structured. This is why we got Trump, because the media wouldn't shut the fuck up about him. They're all about the drama. I swear to god, if Biden gets the nomination because he's getting most of the attention, I'm out.
I have no interest in the debates because all that matters is that they nominate a functioning adult. The red-hatted mob has set the bar very low.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 02, 2019, 12:59:25 PM
I missed the live showings of the Democratic debates, so I tried to find them on YouTube and...of course. The media, instead of focusing on the issues and giving each candidate equal time to give their perspectives, they instead focus on two candidates, arguing back and forth. I hate the ways these debates are structured. This is why we got Trump, because the media wouldn't shut the fuck up about him. They're all about the drama. I swear to god, if Biden gets the nomination because he's getting most of the attention, I'm out.
An interpretation of an interpretation and pretty soon you have chaos. Yes, I am sorry, it is probably true for any candidate, whoever gets the most MSM attention, for whatever reason, gets the nomination, and usually the office. Remember how Lilliput chooses PMs ... they have to walk a tightrope in front of the court.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:58:50 AM
Health care is hard. And a vital interest for the elderly (most of us here). Giving trillions to immigrants is a non-starter. You can reprioritize the existing budget to better support Medicare and Medicaid ... and develop better delivery than they provide (and much more competently than a borrowed Republican plan wrapped in Democrat rhetoric). But you can't have war and peace at the same time. Choose peace, then you can do more domestically. It may be objectively true, for instance, that the Canadian system is better than the US system, though imperfect as all systems are. But that is because Canada is peaceful, not war mongering.
Specify the $Trillions, please.
You Can have war and peace at the same time. We do it routinely. Both now and in the past. I saw documentary film showing German citizens enjoying beach time while England was being bombed in WWII, for example. And BTW, the women were wearing bikinis that I thought were created in the late 50s.
But also, War Is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 09:20:32 AM
Specify the $Trillions, please.
You Can have war and peace at the same time. We do it routinely. Both now and in the past. I saw documentary film showing German citizens enjoying beach time while England was being bombed in WWII, for example. And BTW, the women were wearing bikinis that I thought were created in the late 50s.
But also, War Is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Streng
OK ... $100,000 per American, over a 60 year lifespan. So $1667 per person per year. Multiply by 330 million Americans. So a total of $550 billion per year. Adjust up or down but doable. Same as Canada. But not if we are warmongering. US shouldn't be at war, ever. We have two oceans. Let Europe die again.
Dems today, resurrecting LBJ. Part of the 60s repeat.
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 11:58:34 AM
OK ... $100,000 per American, over a 60 year lifespan. So $1667 per person per year. Multiply by 330 million Americans. So a total of $550 billion per year. Adjust up or down but doable. Same as Canada. But not if we are warmongering. US shouldn't be at war, ever. We have two oceans. Let Europe die again.
Dems today, resurrecting LBJ. Part of the 60s repeat.
So $550 billion is "trillions"?
BTW, oceans are no longer a protection. Bismark was right about them in his time, but not now.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 12:47:08 PM
So $550 billion is "trillions"?
BTW, oceans are no longer a protection. Bismark was right about them in his time, but not now.
Pfft ... if you give luxury health insurance (not care) then much more than $1667 per person per year. Try $6000 per year. Then it is trillions.
Yes, the only way to save the US ... we must become the 4th Reich.
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 01:11:44 PM
Pfft ... if you give luxury health insurance (not care) then much more than $1667 per person per year. Try $6000 per year. Ten it is trillions.
Yes, the only way to save the US ... we must become the 4th Reich.
Nice try. I bet that took a couple minutes (hey, you DO type fast). But few people have luxury health insurance and those are mostly billionaires paying for it by Trumpian subsidies.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 01:20:00 PM
Nice try. I bet that took a couple minutes (hey, you DO type fast). But few people have luxury health insurance and those are mostly billionaires paying for it by Trumpian subsidies.
That isn't what the people want. Personal health insurance is $500 per person. If all of that went to care, and none to insurance, then it is $6000 per year. That funds a robust preventative care and the extremely expensive Senior care. $6000 per month is minimum for end of life care, I know, I paid for my mother.
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 01:38:41 PM
That isn't what the people want. Personal health insurance is $500 per person. If all of that went to care, and none to insurance, then it is $6000 per year. That funds a robust preventative care and the extremely expensive Senior care. $6000 per month is minimum for end of life care, I know, I paid for my mother.
THAT'S the problem. Meaningful health care costs are artificially high. I don't pay $500 per month. And I'm not even on Medicare (maybe I should be). There is a reason US citizens go to Canada to by routine meds... The Govt is in bed with the insurers. That can change without harm to insurees.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 01:43:26 PM
THAT'S the problem. Meaningful health care costs are artificially high. I don't pay $500 per month. And I'm not even on Medicare (maybe I should be). There is a reason US citizens go to Canada to by routine meds... The Govt is in bed with the insurers. That can change without harm to insurees.
Thank G-d for communism, and the termination of capitalism. Kill the drug company executives, kill the doctors, kill the nurses ... greedy bastards ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 01:47:43 PM
Thank G-d for communism, and the termination of capitalism. Kill the drug company executives, kill the doctors, kill the nurses ... greedy bastards ;-)
It is amazing watching you change sides daily. Last week, it was communists who threatened the world, today it is capitalists. Will it be moderates tomorrow?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 04:43:28 PM
It is amazing watching you change sides daily. Last week, it was communists who threatened the world, today it is capitalists. Will it be moderates tomorrow?
"Kill them all, let God sort it out" - Papal ambassador to the Albigensian Crusade in S France.
Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 06:02:16 PM
"Kill them all, let God sort it out" - Papal ambassador to the Albigensian Crusade in S France.
I use that phrase often in sarcasm. As an example of theistic stupidity...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 10:17:00 PM
I use that phrase often in sarcasm. As an example of theistic stupidity...
In poor taste, if you know about Bezier France.
Quote from: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 11:20:49 PM
In poor taste, if you know about Bezier France.
Looked it up and saw no problem. So what's the sitch?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 12:52:42 AM
Looked it up and saw no problem. So what's the sitch?
They massacred all the people there. Albigensian Crusade, with Papal approval ... is where the quote comes from. The papal ambassador was present at the massacre.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 01:59:18 AM
They massacred all the people there. Albigensian Crusade, with Papal approval ... is where the quote comes from. The papal ambassador was present at the massacre.
Well, I'll be darned. I thought it was from the Crusades. Thanks.
Still, just another 1200s theist-on-theist "debate", LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 13, 2019, 03:38:08 AM
Well, I'll be darned. I thought it was from the Crusades. Thanks.
Still, just another 1200s theist-on-theist "debate", LOL!
Yes, the crusade against S France. Not all crusades were against the ME.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 06:02:07 AM
Yes, the crusade against S France. Not all crusades were against the ME.
Hitler would have loved you.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 06:45:49 AM
Hitler would have loved you.
I used to have kosher Nazi regalia, and stabbed a picture of you every morning, Snoopy, with my Luftwaffe dagger.
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 06:02:07 AM
Yes, the crusade against S France. Not all crusades were against the ME.
The rabidly offensive unconcern with human life was and is common among theists of all kinds. I only meant that the LOCATION of the christian STATEMENT of "kill them all" etc surprised me. Given my knowledge of the religious wars in Europe after the Crusades, I was actually shocked. It made sense.
To me, theism arguments are like arguing about whether to break the large or small end of a boiled egg. Yeah Swift, I'll save us having Baruch mention too much of it.
The Albigensian Crusade was an interior crusade. Like Chiang Kai Shek, the Catholics considered an interior enemy to be more serious than an exterior enemy.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 08:13:48 AM
The Albigensian Crusade was an interior crusade. Like Chiang Kai Shek, the Catholics considered an interior enemy to be more serious than an exterior enemy.
I fully understand that. But what part of my admitting that I got the LOCATION of the phrase wrong is still bothering you? Is it that finally having gotten SOMETHING right, you can't accept it? I checked the reference, I agree. You were right.
Be at peace...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 09:16:15 AM
I fully understand that. But what part of my admitting that I got the LOCATION of the phrase wrong is still bothering you? Is it that finally having gotten SOMETHING right, you can't accept it? I checked the reference, I agree. You were right.
Be at peace...
it isn't over until the fat lady sings.
Quote from: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 07:52:52 PM
it isn't over until the fat lady sings.
Who is the fat lady? And why do we have to wait for her to sing before it's all over?
Quote from: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 01:59:18 AM
They massacred all the people there. Albigensian Crusade, with Papal approval ... is where the quote comes from. The papal ambassador was present at the massacre.
When people really believe in Hell and in their self-righteousness to save others from it, atrocities are inevitable.
Quote from: aileron on August 15, 2019, 08:09:40 PM
When people really believe in Hell and in their self-righteousness to save others from it, atrocities are inevitable.
When people believe in secular utopia, the end justifies the means. Dystopia results. In fact, anything people do, dystopia results. Utopia will never result, it is self contradictory.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 01:15:26 AM
When people believe in secular utopia, the end justifies the means. Dystopia results. In fact, anything people do, dystopia results. Utopia will never result, it is self contradictory.
The only thing good about "religious" utopia is that it's fictional...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 08:07:40 AM
The only thing good about "religious" utopia is that it's fictional...
For some. All of them are bad. Humanity can't help itself.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:08:39 PM
For some. All of them are bad. Humanity can't help itself.
There 's a place called Helios. It's beautiful and hot...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 05:37:29 PM
There 's a place called Helios. It's beautiful and hot...
Didn't work out for Phaeton or Icarus.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 05:52:18 PM
Didn't work out for Phaeton or Icarus.
If you plan to clean up, it's effective...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 16, 2019, 06:15:46 PM
If you plan to clean up, it's effective...
Always needing proles to clean up after elite/technical failures.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 08:06:09 PM
Always needing proles to clean up after elite/technical failures.
Not if you burn in a flash in outer space...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 17, 2019, 08:42:49 AM
Not if you burn in a flash in outer space...
Tell that to the folks who keep track of all the space junk. Burning up in the atmosphere maybe, but not in open space.
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2019, 10:25:36 AM
Tell that to the folks who keep track of all the space junk. Burning up in the atmosphere maybe, but not in open space.
Not if you bring your own oxygen...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 17, 2019, 12:42:55 PM
Not if you bring your own oxygen...
Nobody can hear you grade undergraduate work (scream) in space ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on August 17, 2019, 11:22:03 PM
Nobody can hear you grade undergraduate work (scream) in space ;-(
Just because I can, your grade has been lowered. You get a G.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 09:33:05 AM
Just because I can, your grade has been lowered. You get a G.
Wow. You know the alphabet? I thought STEM folks were illiterate ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 11:06:31 AM
Wow. You know the alphabet? I thought STEM folks were illiterate ;-)
It's not the first time you're wrong, and won't be the last time...:-)
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 18, 2019, 11:58:58 AM
It's not the first time you're wrong, and won't be the last time...:-)
Since you are uber-STEM, I am still suspicious you are keeping a liberal arts ameneusis to do your posting for you ;-)
Communicating by using Feynman diagrams as a kind of sign language.
Quote from: Baruch on August 18, 2019, 02:03:15 PM
I am still suspicious you are keeping a liberal arts ameneusis to do your posting for you ;-)
I thought about hiring one, but where would be the fun...
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2019, 01:15:26 AM
When people believe in secular utopia, the end justifies the means. Dystopia results. In fact, anything people do, dystopia results. Utopia will never result, it is self contradictory.
When people believe in a theistic utopia, the end justifies the means. Dystopia results. Note the difference.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 02:45:25 AM
When people believe in a theistic utopia, the end justifies the means. Dystopia results. Note the difference.
I don't consider anything atheists come up with as utopia. By definition, idealism is crap. But that doesn't make atheists "worse" than theists. It is only in that sense that atheists are "as moral" as theists, in that they aren't "more immoral".
Whatever your politics, it must be refreshing to see a candidate for President speak (and write) above a fifth grade level.
Quote from: Sylar on October 16, 2019, 10:10:23 PM
Whatever your politics, it must be refreshing to see a candidate for President speak (and write) above a fifth grade level.
Idiots are less dangerous than the educated. The educated think too much (fictitious quote by Pol Pot).
Trump loves the poorly educated. I wonder why?
Quote from: Unbeliever on October 17, 2019, 02:01:45 PM
Trump loves the poorly educated. I wonder why?
Intelligencia just need to be put in a sack and tossed in the river. Thus ... we can save a lot of sacks, by defunding the Commie Universities permanently. In fact, since Marx got his education at the British Museum and British Library, we need to shut down the museums and libraries. Since air is good for Marxists, I would cut that off too, if it wouldn't asphyxiate the non-Marxists.
"HILLARY CLINTON IS THE NEW 2020 DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER THIS IS NOT A JOKE" ... a new poll says. Also another article says that Hillary is the only one who can save the Dems from Bloomberg ;-) ... who is attempting to buy his way into the Iowa Caucus and the NH Primary.
The Clintons have been poison to the D party since 1992. They have a death grip on it thru their corruption of the DNC and Convention.