magekillr

dpattle, nothing is proven in this world. Things are just disproved, and then we accept that the things we cannot disprove through the scientific method as being proven with 100% certainty (if these results can be repeated). We "don't know" that the Earth revolves around the sun. We "don't know" that cells exist. All theories are "still being developed". That is what science is, and that is why it's a theory.

Lol, have you ever heard anyone with a serious intellect comment on anything related to the economy that comes from this background of economics? Anyway, they've just been swarming the internet ever since the "Revolution" of Ron Paul started up. I didn't say the rate that it currently was, I said it's the rate that the Fed typically sets. It could be lower, it could be higher; it's their goal inflationary rate. It is healthy because deflation is always detrimental. Unless you're God and could predict the exact amount of money needed to be added to compensate for the expanding economy every year, then inflation is a healthy aspect of a growing economy. We would have zero inflation if we could somehow do this, and everything would be perfect. We cannot do this, it is in fact not only impossible to gather said information, but if we could, the time taken to gather and then compute would take so long that we would be years behind in data. It is the same issue that causes communism to fail. Too much necessary information to obtain, absorb, and interpret. Here's a good analysis of what I think he is doing: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/ ... ating.html Obama is not an idiot, he certainly knows what must be done to this stimulus for it to actually have an impact. His economic team is beyond genius, so I'm not worried about that. I am worried that the Democrats won't grow a spine and simply give in to what Republicans want regarding this, but we shall see. Krugman is dead on: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opini ... ugman.html If you could convince everyone to spend their money on certain things then perhaps it would do some good, but in times like these, people do not spend and they save every penny that they possibly can. Tax cuts don't really create that many jobs. The problem with infrastructure investment is that we don't necessarily have the projects roaring and ready to go ("shovel ready"). I still see investment in infrastructure as our best bet, it is by far the most sound investment that the government can make.

When the american congress realizes printing bills =/= helping the economy *sigh* Austrian "economists" and Ron Paul advocates are seriously getting on my nerves. Sorry, I'm not referring to you specifically as either of those things, but the way you put it is simple minded thinking, and quite far from the truth. People need to realize that a little inflation is a GREAT and HEALTHY thing for the economy, and the Federal Reserve isn't some giant bank cartel out to seize the Earth and enslave humanity. Inflation keeps the economy going, and without it, credit lines dry up and the economy freezes. Now, large amounts of inflation are detrimental, but the rates that the Fed sets are around 1-2 percent; perfectly healthy and normal. Putting the money in the hands of the government over the people, in this instance, is well needed and the only way to get out of this mess. People will save their money, and not spend it. If we keep the government from making wasteful expenditures, while investing in infrastructure that will pay off in the long road ahead, it could be enough to build confidence among the public to spend, and for investors to invest. I wish the Republicans would let us take out a lot of those tax cuts in the stimulus, and put more towards infrastructure, but we shall see what the Senate does.

Got you covered: http://www.politico.com/politico44/ He is preventing the strengthening and arming of Hamas, while encouraging Fatah to work with them---while having diplomatic talks with Hamas as the legitimate Palestinian government.

Obama's first Presidential order: Ending Guantanamo Bay. "Obama suspends prosecutions at Gitmo for 120 days...."--Breaking on CNN. It's happening already, friends. He is not [bleep]ing around.

This. Their house, their rules. Until you pay rent as a tenant, you really have no room to complain unless it's just like a fascist household. I'm 20 and when I go home I can't have a woman in my room even with the door open. And all this talk about nose piercings being unattractive, it depends on the person. On the right girl, they're sexy as hell.

What's that got to do with classifying race by biology? Race as we know it in layman's term is nothing but a mere social construct. Race as evolutionary biologists recognize is COMPLETELY different from that. Moreover, using the layman's definition of race, the genetic variation within a race is much, much greater than the variation between individuals of separate races. Hi Goddess, I'm happy to hear that you had your son safely, and that you're officially a mum :) (I realize this happened a while back, I just never congratulated you).

Circle. Far better at dealing with stresses than squares because squares have corners. Ovals are even better, but then again, so are "I" shapes :)

1.) Point taken, but I've been on this campaign trail for too long to give people any benefit of the doubt regarding this issue. Every person I have encountered that's pointed it out has made other assorted racial comments, and identified themselves as someone that is a racist. It's like saying that "not all people that wave Confederate Flags are racists." Ok, maybe like 0.00001% are not, but the vast majority are. It has nothing to do with a "Symbol of Southern Heritage/Pride", it's just taking pride in what your ancestors tried to do by masking their views on slavery with "States' Rights". 2.) They're not classifiable by biology was my point, regardless of minute differences. It's like pointing out that our equations for calculating stress don't take into account the small other forces involved, and are therefore giving "inaccurate" results. The reality is that these small other forces are so small that they're negligible, and there's really no point in trying to calculate them in the first place. http://www.bcm.edu/edict/PDF/Scientific_Rationale.pdf

Okay, you may not adhere to it, but Pascal's Wager has some pretty faulty reasoning if you consider the assumptions it's founded upon. You assume that the deity you are gambling on is the right one. The problem is that the probability that God exists is the same as the probability of Zeus existing, of Shiva existing, of Ishtar existing, and so on. So how do you know that the deity you are betting on is the correct one? Why does a belief in God have more epistemological weight than a belief in another deity? You assume that if there is a God and you bet on His existence, He rewards on the basis of faith. Aside from what a religious text tells you, which isn't verifiable evidence, there is no evidence establishing God's nature as being one way or another, namely because there's no evidence of God to begin with. So no, I don't consider Pascal's Wager a logical reason for belief because it rests on some unverifiable (and extremely unlikely) assumptions. But just ponder the general questions: how do you know with certainty that the deity you are betting on is the RIGHT one? And what makes you so sure the reward-risk scheme is in your favor? What if there are severe consequences to betting on the WRONG deity's existence? I'm sure God won't know that you really have no faith to begin with, and are making a "gamble".

I get racism from that because the only people that attempt to point out that he's "half" are the same people that go, "He's half and not black, therefore we still haven't had a black President." It's a subtle attempt to take away the significance of his election from all Americans (especially African Americans). I would call that racist because it's almost as if they have to point it out so that they can sleep soundly knowing that there still hasn't been an "African American" President. It's not like we're blind, we can see that he's "half", why point it out? Anyway, I should have clarified: There is no biological basis for classifying race. True, there are some scientists that disagree with this notion, but the consensus is that there is no biological basis for defining what one's race is. Therefore, making claims that Obama is not black because he is "half" biologically is just plain ridiculous because they have no basis for these claims other than their own social constructs, and bigoted thought processes. edit: Is Ardenal a troll here? I haven't seen him much, and all of his posts drip with racial stereotypes, and bigoted ideas.

Contrary to popular belief, and it is quite the popular belief because they bring up how he says "um" a lot when he is thinking, Obama rarely uses a teleprompter unless it's a big speech, such as at the Democratic National Convention. He usually memorizes them. I'm not sure if he memorized this or not, though.

Thank you! Just cause the black skinned gene in his DNA happened to dominate the white skinned gene all of a sudden makes him African American, when he was raised by his white mother and grandmother for all of his life, not his black father. Environmentally he is white, and genetically he's gray, so why do people worship him? Hey, racists, race is not biological, it is a social construct. Go find me evidence that race is biological, and I'll apologize for calling you racists. Obama identifies as a black man, he would be viewed by the world's social construct as a black man, he is therefore a black man.

It wasn't his greatest of speeches, but it was the perfect speech for the right time. He was very specific, direct, and brutally honest about many things. I was a little annoyed at the whole 'anyone who criticised america' must hate our freedoms hern hern shtick that he's peddling... like no one in the world could POSSIBLY have a reason to not love the states. Other than that, it was perfect. I especially liked Rev. Lowery's benediction. These three portions of the speech stuck out to me: and finally, he kicked nationalism in the balls:

Oh I'm not saying that I wish colonialism hadn't happened, per se, but I'm saying the approach that the history text books take is kind of insulting. They make it seem like a happy time, with these brave men venturing out into the wilderness, and being friends with their new native neighbors. It just seems, jovial, rather than barbaric. I don't think we'd still be in a dark age. During the Dark Ages in Europe, the Middle East and Asia were going through scientific revolutions, many of which influenced the Europeans that we traditionally recognize (Newton, Keplar, Copernicus, etc). I do think colonialism is in part responsible for many things that plague the world today, such as terrorism, the wars between India and Pakistan, Palestinian conflict, and the shambles that Africa is in. I couldn't tell you if I think it was more of a bad thing than good, I haven't really thought about it to be honest. edit: While I'm sure that the events that occurred would not have happened, other things could have taken their place. I'm not exactly a supporter of the Revolutionary War, either. While the King was somewhat of a tyrant to not place anyone in parliament, they were still colonies to England, so taxing them was pretty fair. It was nothing short of treason, but I could not say if that treason was justified or not. Speaking of the Revolutionary War and textbooks, they make it seem like the idea of overthrowing England and forming their own country was a well supported idea. Almost no one wanted to go to war with England, and it didn't even pick up any steam until Patrick Henry gave his speech. Most of the colonists were loyalists, although that started to change as the Revolution began. I want to say that loyalists were in the majority, and some went to England while others went to what is now known as Canada.

No, he actually knew the oath correctly, and Roberts was giving it wrong: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... of-office/

"Common history" aka what they teach in schools *shudder* is rife with mis/half-truths and nationalistic propaganda. I try to teach real history when I can but it's hard for a 9th grader with undeveloped reasoning skills and 10 years of wrong teaching to grasp the concept of true history. It's always either the white legend or black legend, when they should be teaching the gray. History should be approached from all sides, not one. I completely agree with you here. ESPECIALLY colonialism. They don't really go into depth about how the colonists and conquistadors completely butchered and savaged millions of Native Americans. Hell, we celebrate Columbus; how backwards is it that we support a man that was the reason for the murder of millions of people. It's the same thing with the celebration of Che Gueverra. I am a socialist, but Che was nothing more than a brutal murderer, that killed those who refused to take up his cause. Who won WWII? Oh, America. While it's true that we did, can we please explore the effect that Russia had on the Eastern Front? You know, the part where most of the battles were waged? I guess we took out their contributions because of the Cold War, but it just annoys me.

The South seceded because of the election of Lincoln. They knew full well of his views. Had the other candidates won, they wouldn't have seceded in the first place.

Many of Lincoln's speeches are very anti-slavery, especially the later ones. It really depends on the context and when he gave them, as I have been reading his works lately. He was a complex person. I think if you put yourself in that time, and see that a white president saying those very progressive things, he would have been considered a very brave and progressive president for his time and perhaps even hated by most whites for his anti-slavery views, though not totally condoned by abolitionists either. I think no one really knows what his views on slaves and the black race was truly. That requires getting into the man's brain, instead of analyzing his political speeches and letters. Perhaps he didn't think they were equal to whites, but the steps he took to end slavery was still something that requires that the person weigh the morality of the institution of slavery, and particularly a religious man such as Lincoln....this in itself is commendable. For someone to do what he did, while preserving the Union, is enough to recognize that person as a great President. There's a reason a lot of historians regard him as the greatest President we have ever had, including myself.

I agree with you, Ratchet. This is why I go on news forums/blogs/browse Yahoo/CNN/MSNBC/BBC/Al Jazeera for news articles. You get to learn about new developments, learn some new vocabulary (rarely, but it happens), and see the point of views of commentators laid out in essay format. It's far more stimulating than listening to a talking head on the TV. It's just sensationalist media, intertwined with what entertains people, blended together for ratings and money. Stick with reading, you'll avoid all of the hassle.

Obviously a lot of people, or they wouldn't air the story. Who cares about Britney Spears' new love affair/her children? Not I, but it still gets reported.

Did you watch the news ever, before this election? They repeat the same stories throughout the day on the hour, sometimes not a single new bit of information is even given each time, because they're on 24/7 (as explained by Jake). If there's 4-5 top stories during the day, they'll repeat the same 2-3 over and over, and they'll repeat the other 2-3 sometimes. It's nothing new, it just seems that way.

"I'm getting a car for my birthday! I'm getting a car for my birthday! I'm getting a car for my birthday! I'm getting a car for my birthday! I'm getting a car for my birthday! I'm getting a car for my birthday! I'm getting a car for my birthday!" Get it yet? That's how it's annoying. Then...don't watch the news? I enjoy politics, I enjoy what's happening around the world...I don't watch the TV news stations; typically things are sensationalized and they ruin the real story. I would much rather read articles. I don't understand why it's so hard to avoid.

Well, I for one am celebrating that we have an intellectual in the white house. Finally someone that understands science, the history of the Middle East region, what a democracy really is, getting rid of torture....it's just like I woke up from a horrible 8 year long nightmare. Why is it so annoying to you?

He gets it, he really gets it: "And if we ignore those things, then oftentimes an election can just backfire or at least won't deliver for the people the kinds of -- it may raise expectations but not deliver what they're looking for." This is exactly how Hamas came to power. He just understands the Palestinian people's plight. This statement makes me incredibly hopeful about peace agreements in the Middle East, I just hope he puts his money where his mouth is.