60 Minutes

Quote
Anonymous said:
“The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”
Click to expand...


Fuck amending a crap constitution...we want to ditch it for something better, remember?
 




Anonymous said:
Fuck amending a crap constitution...we want to ditch it for something better, remember?
Click to expand...

I remember... You are the radical who appears to be generally uneducated, ignorant about the political process, ignorant about economics, confused about your own platform from the beginning, and indelicate when it comes to the craft of diplomacy.
 




Anonymous said:
You want some science instead?

Predicting extinction in a changing world

There is great interest in understanding how species might respond to our changing climate, but predictions have varied greatly. Urban looked at over 130 studies to identify the level of risk that climate change poses to species and the specific traits and characteristics that contribute to risk (see the Perspective by Hille Ris Lambers). If climate changes proceed as expected, one in six species could face extinction. Several regions, including South America, Australia, and New Zealand, face the greatest risk. Understanding these patterns will help us to prepare for, and hopefully prevent, climate-related loss of biodiversity.

ABSTRACT

Current predictions of extinction risks from climate change vary widely depending on the specific assumptions and geographic and taxonomic focus of each study. I synthesized published studies in order to estimate a global mean extinction rate and determine which factors contribute the greatest uncertainty to climate change–induced extinction risks. Results suggest that extinction risks will accelerate with future global temperatures, threatening up to one in six species under current policies. Extinction risks were highest in South America, Australia, and New Zealand, and risks did not vary by taxonomic group. Realistic assumptions about extinction debt and dispersal capacity substantially increased extinction risks. We urgently need to adopt strategies that limit further climate change if we are to avoid an acceleration of global extinctions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/571.short
Click to expand...

I can assure you... wild, unfounded predictions are not "science".
 












Anonymous said:
Ummm.... TeaParty.org was created on: September 2nd, 2004. I believe Obama didn't assume The Presidency until Jan. 2009. You're right... somebody doesn't know history. That somebody is YOU.

What a typical LAZY LIBERAL, CONVENIENT argument. When in doubt, just cry racism. You are a fucking JOKE!
Click to expand...

As Jimi sang "White collar conservative flashin down the street, pointing that plastic finger at me, they all assume my kind will drop and die, but I'm gonna wave my freak flag high." So F Off tea baggers!!
 




















Anonymous said:
I'm not surprised drug dealers don't understand science.
You should stick to watching Breaking Bad.
Click to expand...

Phlogiston was an element believed to exist in all combustible objects. It was thought that this is what made things burn and that it became lost in the combustion process, which explained why objects weighted less after ignition.

This theory is not ancient in origin, developing as late on as 1667 from a man named Johann Becher and led to several mistaken explanations of new discoveries. Gradually, it lost support, as experiments showed that certain elements, such as magnesium, actually gained weight after burning.
 












Anonymous said:
Phlogiston was an element believed to exist in all combustible objects. It was thought that this is what made things burn and that it became lost in the combustion process, which explained why objects weighted less after ignition.

This theory is not ancient in origin, developing as late on as 1667 from a man named Johann Becher and led to several mistaken explanations of new discoveries. Gradually, it lost support, as experiments showed that certain elements, such as magnesium, actually gained weight after burning.
Click to expand...


The 2008 crash showed that the models used to describe the economy were fallible. Despite 30 years of behavioral economics research, the mainstream models of markets were all based on assumptions of perfect rationality. (This was wrong, as most market participants act irrationally.) The interrelations between the political framework and the internal mechanisms of markets were not considered, especially themes around social justice and the legitimacy of extraordinary profits. The last 7 years have provided enough time and space for a broader debate about markets that take such dimensions into account.
 




Anonymous said:
“Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”
― Milton Friedman
Click to expand...


Adam Smith and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel concerned themselves on the principle that members of a society have an equal status as human beings, with basic rights and dignity. For Smith, the decisive contrast between a commercial society and a feudal society is that in the former, everyone has equal rights, and an equal opportunity to participate in the economic and social life of his or her country; in a similar way, Hegel sees equality before the law as the crucial achievement of modernity, for which he saw the French Revolution as breakthrough.

Both do not give us formulae for how much inequality is compatible with the equal standing of citizens. Roughly, Smith thinks that free markets lead to greater equality because they lift the working poor to a comfortable standard of living and they erode the inequalities of the feudal age, and that’s one of the reasons why he endorses them. Hegel, in contrast, thinks that free markets lead to increasing inequality; in fact, he predicts the development of a “rabble” of poor who cannot lift themselves out of poverty any more.

Smith developed his model of commercial society as a form of oligarchy, in which a small class of privileged individuals holds disproportionate wealth and disproportionate power, which helps them to cement their position. Smith was too optimistic with his assumption that in a commercial society vast fortunes would be eroded over time. The markets we have today are vastly different animals than the markets Smith wrote about, especially when it comes to the role of corporations, or when you consider the network effects that you have in many modern technologies.

The problem today is that markets are far less open for new entrants than the rhetoric of “free markets” suggests. The mechanism Smith was interested in is much more a question of giving individuals an opportunity to “work their way up”. With new, high-demand jobs, individuals could acquire a small fortune and hence economic security, which would give them “tranquillity of the mind”. This translates into a question over which institutional settings are required to make sure that every individual can earn a decent standard of living, and have sufficient economic security – so that people can turn to those things in life that really matter. For Smith, these are not economic things, but things such as love and friendship, and time to enjoy literature or music.

Both Smith and Hegel agreed on a basic fact about human nature, one in which we are influenced by our social contexts that are developed by underlying natural (metaphysical) processes. Even if we disagree with Smith and Hegel, consider the following questions: how can we shape our social contexts in ways that allow us to become, and remain, moral agents? Which co-responsibilities do we have for these phenomena, which, by definition, transcend the scope of action of single individuals?
 




Anonymous said:
You are obviously rusty on your biblical history. Heard of the Sadducees?
Click to expand...

Ok biblical genius.... You show me where Sadducees said this "I remember... You are the radical who appears to be generally uneducated, ignorant about the political process, ignorant about economics, confused about your own platform from the beginning, and indelicate when it comes to the craft of diplomacy.", about Jesus.
 








Anonymous said:
Adam Smith and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel concerned themselves on the principle that members of a society have an equal status as human beings, with basic rights and dignity. For Smith, the decisive contrast between a commercial society and a feudal society is that in the former, everyone has equal rights, and an equal opportunity to participate in the economic and social life of his or her country; in a similar way, Hegel sees equality before the law as the crucial achievement of modernity, for which he saw the French Revolution as breakthrough.

Both do not give us formulae for how much inequality is compatible with the equal standing of citizens. Roughly, Smith thinks that free markets lead to greater equality because they lift the working poor to a comfortable standard of living and they erode the inequalities of the feudal age, and that’s one of the reasons why he endorses them. Hegel, in contrast, thinks that free markets lead to increasing inequality; in fact, he predicts the development of a “rabble” of poor who cannot lift themselves out of poverty any more.

Smith developed his model of commercial society as a form of oligarchy, in which a small class of privileged individuals holds disproportionate wealth and disproportionate power, which helps them to cement their position. Smith was too optimistic with his assumption that in a commercial society vast fortunes would be eroded over time. The markets we have today are vastly different animals than the markets Smith wrote about, especially when it comes to the role of corporations, or when you consider the network effects that you have in many modern technologies.

The problem today is that markets are far less open for new entrants than the rhetoric of “free markets” suggests. The mechanism Smith was interested in is much more a question of giving individuals an opportunity to “work their way up”. With new, high-demand jobs, individuals could acquire a small fortune and hence economic security, which would give them “tranquillity of the mind”. This translates into a question over which institutional settings are required to make sure that every individual can earn a decent standard of living, and have sufficient economic security – so that people can turn to those things in life that really matter. For Smith, these are not economic things, but things such as love and friendship, and time to enjoy literature or music.

Both Smith and Hegel agreed on a basic fact about human nature, one in which we are influenced by our social contexts that are developed by underlying natural (metaphysical) processes. Even if we disagree with Smith and Hegel, consider the following questions: how can we shape our social contexts in ways that allow us to become, and remain, moral agents? Which co-responsibilities do we have for these phenomena, which, by definition, transcend the scope of action of single individuals?
Click to expand...

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
 




Anonymous said:
If you ask me about my views on the environment, on women's rights, on gay rights, I am liberal. I don't have a problem with that at all. Some of my best friends are liberal and I am PROUD of them!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, we get it. Women's rights = kill babies on demand. Gay rights = Anti traditional marriage. Environment = Totalitarian government.

I'm glad you're proud... Nobody ask you and nobody cares.
 








Top Bottom
Back
Quote