Barothmuk
-
Posts
230 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Barothmuk
-
-
Better to focus on actual their politics and past actions.Tip from a guy on the internet: Don't focus so much on the conservative and liberal labels of any possible future justice. Rather, focus on character and traits.
I think Obama's a charming guy but that's not a good reason to vote for him.
-
Get rid of both the liberals and conservatives. Perfect compromise.
-
@ Bruce, what do you think of Varoufakis?
-
I'm still waiting to read that debate between you and KP on the European debt crisis.Thats fine but you guys really need to start debating with me and then we can gauge who is the most informed, its not about being superior. Its just a debate....but I'll be honest you seem to debate mostly using emotion which is influenced by a certain bias so because I can honestly support everything I say I doubt you would win..
But its just fun, I love having debates ....but I wont hold back
-
1
-
-
In my experience that's not why we're laughing at you.We're a laughing stock in foreign affairs because our enemies believe us weak and stupid.
-
2
-
-
Republican debate is infinitely more entertaining than the Democrat one.
-
All these paywalls do is encourage bull****ting papers by fudging sources based on the abstract.Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge
A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 million journal articles - almost every single peer-reviewed paper every published - freely available online. And she’s now refusing to shut the site down, despite a court injunction and a lawsuit from Elsevier, one of the world’s biggest publishers.
For those of you who aren’t already using it, the site in question is Sci-Hub, and it’s sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated that she couldn’t afford to access the articles needed for her research, and it’s since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a New York district court - a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, triggering a debate over who really owns science.
“Payment of $32 is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating them,”Elbakyan told Torrent Freak last year. “Everyone should have access to knowledge regardless of their income or affiliation. And that’s absolutely legal.”
If it sounds like a modern day Robin Hood struggle, that’s because it kinda is. But in this story, it’s not just the poor who don’t have access to scientific papers - journal subscriptions have become so expensive that leading universities such as Harvard and Cornell have admitted they can no longer afford them. Researchers have also taken a stand - with 15,000 scientists vowing to boycott publisher Elsevier in part for its excessive paywall fees. Continue reading
-
What superior definition of "crash" are you using? In my experience 1929, 1987 and 2008 are all considered "crashes".It was bad I won't deny it but it wasnt a crash...1929 was a crash
-
I want in on what they're paying you.Do you mean like 2008....which wasn't a crash but a serious slowdown and period of financial negative contagion
-
1
-
-
Here's what I said 25 pages agoWhats your prediction, I like the question. I'll give my prediction after you
Clinton will win, obnoxious liberals will praise this as a victory for progressivism, the right will be emboldened to support even stupider and more destructive economic policies, and the moderate to far left will continue to be completely irrelevant all the while being blamed for everything.
On the plus side we're due for another market crash and I don't see the left as it exists now surviving that.
-
@GD, what's your prediction for the next 5-10 years?
-
Latest Democrat debate was pretty ****. Sanders really needs to drop his "I won't attack Clinton/Obama" tactic.
-
American maths.
-
1
-
-
I agree with this sentiment.I am going to build a time machine, go back to 1914 and shoot Hitler while he's riding his bicycle around delivering messages in the army. To say nothing of the other benefits that will have at least then we can get through an election cycle without hearing about a modern politician who has never and would never order the gassing of anyone to Hitler!
Personally it annoys me because it implies any political fault must be part of some external problem or corrupting force, i.e. liberals or conservatives can't be bad in of themselves - they're actually becoming fascist!
That said I do disagree with this:
I did just sit through a Republican debate where they were discussing bringing in even greater "enhanced interrogation techniques". Plus I wouldn't put anything past Ms. Clinton.politician who has never and would never order the gassing of anyone
-
2
-
-
He wasn't asking why they prefer Democrats over Republicans. He was asking why they prefer Clinton over Sanders.
-
See they're believing it!I'm a minority and all the other minority democrats I talk to prefer voting Clinton > Sanders.
-
If you repeat something enough people will come to believe it.I don't understand why the US media constantly talk about how Hillary Clinton has such an advantage with minority voters.
-
I agree with Bruce. We should abolish the vote. Clinton knows what's best for us.
-
1
-
-
Senator Bernie Sanders is a decent human being and a passionate politician. He is also a grave threat to the Democratic Party. Because the Democratic Party is currently the only major U.S. party devoted to moderation and rational empiricism, Sanders's robust campaign for president is consequently a threat to the U.S. as well...
Sanders lacks the talent for sneering contempt that animates the candidacies of Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Donald Trump and, often enough, Marco Rubio. But he shares other unwelcome attributes...
The American economy, a sprawling, $18 trillion behemoth stretching and contracting in more directions at once than anyone can possibly comprehend, much less control, is "rigged," Sanders says. This claim, too, owes much to a paranoid style. Who has rigged this giganotosaurus of disparate goods and endlessly varied services? Perhaps "Wall Street." Or maybe "corporations."
In politics, any force too spectral to wear a proper name is too elusive to be contained by government or law. Sanders all but admits as much. He posits that his election to the White House, where he would command the vast levers of the executive branch, would be insufficient to unrig things. A majority of electoral votes might suffice for a "moderate" like Hillary Clinton; Sanders, however, requires a "revolution."
In Thursday's MSNBC debate in New Hampshire, Sanders exposed other troubling signs reminiscent of some of his right-wing counterparts. His preoccupation with who is and is not a true "progressive" is the mirror image of the right-wing obsession with doctrinal purity and the tedious, narcissistic battle over who is a "true conservative" and who is a compromising RINO.
...
Sanders is no Carson or Trump; he lacks their preening self-regard (in the form of false humility in Carson's case) and their casual contempt for voters. But Sanders is almost exclusively animated by economic inequality and injustice.
For more than two decades the GOP has veered deeper into disaster. Unable to adapt to the rapid cultural, technological, economic and global changes thrust upon it, the party has fomented backlash and reaction. The national Democratic Party, meanwhile, has left its 1970s dysfunction behind. Flexible and functional, it has displayed pragmatism (how much did Nancy Pelosi NOT want to bail out Wall Street in 2008?) and moderation (basing its health-care reform on the plan of a conservative think tank) and knowing, most of the time, more or less, when to take half, or quarter, of a policy loaf when the whole is unobtainable.
Sanders threatens that. Should he wrench a sizable part of the party in his direction, and keep it, Democrats risk resembling Republicans in all their sorry ideological fixations, infighting and incompetence. If a large, radicalized faction emerges on the Democratic side, as it has within the GOP, the nation could truly become ungovernable, paralyzed by two fractured parties equally incapable of reconciling themselves to complex realities.
This is not the promise of Sanders's vision. But it is a potential consequence of it. Like others, Democrats have a lot of pent-up frustration. Many, no doubt, are eager to stick it to the man. But the man, and even the stick, are metaphors, and pretty shallow ones at that. The Democratic Party's hard-won successes -- on health care, climate, financial regulation and more -- are, by contrast, both real and profound. Which is the sturdier political foundation for a just future?
-
1
-
-
Most likely happened but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.
Either way I walk away smug.
-
1
-
-
Things are the way it is because it is the way it is. If it wasn't the way it is, it wouldn't be the way it is.
Interesting assessment
The Nordic model does not work in the US for the reason of it being Nordic, as in it is a natural extension of the mindset in the countries there. As in it is taboo show off your riches; when making important decisions you always discuss it with your teammates before reaching final decision, uncontrollable joy is only acceptable when being drunk and it's important to feel shame on others behalf so that they can be really ashamed of themselves. None of those traits exist in the US or even remotely exemplify the american way of life, and that's why you cannot just insert the same kind of system there and expect the same results, because you won't.Well yes in an ideal world I think the Nordic countries offer the best balance of socialism and Capitalism for any government
But can a system like that be realistically implemented in a place like the USA? I doubt it as most Republicans are opposed to the concept of " big government interference" ....so even though I support the Nordic system of government it can't be implemented everywhere
Where's my nobel prize in political science.
Also Clinton being booed
-
So it's not him advocating for the rape and enslavement of half the population you take issue with?Mostly, I am troubled by MRA and Red Pillers' support of him due to ignorance: he is stealthly spreading Islam in the guise of men's activism, you dumbass. Stop supporting him. Most people do not know of his Muslim root or that his teaching is a "mini version" of Islam (as he said so himself) because the video in the first post is the ONLY time he disclosed he is a Muslim and he is teaching Islam. His name is not "Roosh V" . His real name is Daryush Valizadeh - an Iranian name. And all the Men's Right and Red Pill morons just support him without looking into his background and true agenda: hey, dumbasses, you are supporting a Muslim who is stealthily spreading Islam while pretending to be fighting for men.
-
2
-
-
The misogynistic rapist is right. Islam is a backwards, patriarchal ideology that supports inequality between the sexes and should be openly challenged and criticised like his own backwards, rapist, patriarchal ideology.
That said, this does not mean I support draconian laws that strip muslim civilians of their civil liberties.
-
1
-
-
Bruce is more then welcome to correct but I'm pretty sure he is not a social democrat.
Already done.Someone with good MS Paint skills replace "Bernie Sanders" with "BruceVC"
All the Literature and Reading Stuff...
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Edith Hamilton's Mythology : Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes. For Valentine's Day my girlfriend bought me a copy The Iliad and The Odyssey so I figured I'd brush up on the cultural context before I start.
So far it makes for nice light reading before bed.