Killing People Like Soros: Kosher?

[trendlover]

So a problem could be people who have no opinion or inexpierenced, too young to have opinion yet. They hear a (conclusion)(then think it is truth..do not question it) and then listen to how that truth is justified. But they never question the conclusion, but take it as truth.
Gringo, that is why you say how important it is to let children have a view of the world without one doctrine, because this creates a more open mind to critical thinking.
It is like saying, "This is true, now I will promote it" compare to
"Is this true, and if it is, then I go forward with
what I know at this time"

 

[Gringinho]

trendlover,

becoming radicalised from within one statement, belief or belief system is the fallacy of a false premise. You can extrapolate and infer - but it is unrelated and will be completely meaningless - especially the farther you go from the originating belief, and more steps are inferred.

It is the same as the exploding RMSE from predictions based on predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMSE

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Gringinho:

trendlover,

becoming radicalised from within one statement, belief or belief system is the fallacy of a false premise. You can extrapolate and infer - but it is unrelated and will be completely meaningless - especially the farther you go from the originating belief, and more steps are inferred.

It is the same as the exploding RMSE from predictions based on predictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMSE

You mean like Al Gore has done with human-caused global warming?

 

[trendlover]

AAA , you are saying Al Gore only can see that global warming is man made. And he maybe has not looked at other scientists information. And he does this to promote a carbon tax.
In middle school greenhouse gas is taught as part of global warming, but I know some scientists say it is a solar change not from greenhouse gas. I really do not understand alot about climate change, but someone said to me that if someone could compare temperature change on the moon, compare to earth, (and if there is change on the moon too) then since the moon has no man made greenhouse gas, then climate change is not All man made.
But I see what you are saying with Al Gore. That maybe he only takes one conclusion as truth, without looking at all the information.

 

[Gringinho]

AAA,
I assume Al Gore does not have the complete picture - especially of something as complex as climate change.

Him identifying a stronger newly influence which offsets the balance, that is valid though - and it cannot be disregarded.
It must be understood - but in the whole of the ecosystem - and for getting the "big picture".
Remember, discriminating against influencers is not in line with keeping a correct understanding of a complex system.

 

[OneLeggedJane]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Historically, we can see that one of the oversights of the Constitution was not providing for a method of secession, or alternatively, spelling out explicitly that once a state joined the union, secession would be impossible.

You need only look at an electoral map to see the absurdity of our current situation. Half Obama's electoral votes, give or take, come from four states. There is something profoundly dysfunctional about 90% of the country being governed by urban dwellers in the northeast, upper midwest and west coast who share little in the way of values with the rest of the country.

We need to have a serious national conversation about either revising the way we elect our government or breaking up the country. Would it be a tragedy if California, Oregon and Washington became a separate country? Would our lives change for the worse if the northeast and new england became one or two separate countries? Wouldn't Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota be better served as an independent country or as part of canada?

Wouldn't we be better off if we broke up along these lines and retained a loose confederation similar to the EU? There could be shared national defense, freedom of movement and close cooperation on issues like health, food safety, criminal justice and transportation.

We have strayed so far off course from what the Founders envisioned that such a proposal should not be considered subversive. It may be the only way to preserve their vision.

Have you forgotten that we have a National legislature? Our republican form of government gives full consideration and representation to varying views from different states. We already are a union of states. If the prospect of Obama wielding power in the White House scares you, please thank your cream team heroes, Bush, Cheney, and Rove for thier promotion of the "Unitary Executive"

This is nothing but sour grapes over the abysmal failure of the republican party and the inevitable Democratic majority in the House Senate, and White House come January 20, 2009.

Funny, Pabst and AAA's musings remind me of the hard hat expression to the Vietnam War protestors long ago:

"AMERICA. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!"

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from OneLeggedJane:

Have you forgotten that we have a National legislature? Our republican form of government gives full consideration and representation to varying views from different states. We already are a union of states. If the prospect of Obama wielding power in the White House scares you, please thank your cream team heroes, Bush, Cheney, and Rove for thier promotion of the "Unitary Executive"

This is nothing but sour grapes over the abysmal failure of the republican party and the inevitable Democratic majority in the House Senate, and White House come January 20, 2009.

Funny, Pabst and AAA's musings remind me of the hard hat expression to the Vietnam War protestors long ago:

"AMERICA. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!"

I acknowledge that the wealthy elites who run the democrat party like the concept of controlling the entire country and imposing their values on the rest of us.

My underlying point however is that the valley between the coastal elites and the rest of the country seems to be widening. The leaders of both parties seem to answer more to lobbyists and fringe groups than to voters. They push policies that are overwhelmingly detested by voters. Seemingly, they would rather lose elections than alienate the media and powerful backers.

Our politics are also becoming increasingly coarse, confrontational and potentially violent. I link this to the rapid disappearance of the broad consensus that used to mark our country. The differences between a Richard Nixon and a JFK were more stylistic than substantive. The differences between our candidates today are vast in terms of worldview and policies. Moreover, there is zero respect for opposing views. Liberals view conservatives as evil. Conservatives blame liberals for destroying our country.

I think a devolution of the country into more agreeable units would resolve a lot of these tensions. It is important to do it before things turn violent. Once a tipping point is reached, things can go south very fast.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


...I think a devolution of the country into more agreeable units would resolve a lot of these tensions. It is important to do it before things turn violent. Once a tipping point is reached, things can go south very fast.

I think you're right.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

things can go SOUTH very fast.

Freudian slip or wishful thinking?

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

From a moral standpoint. We ALL advocate and vote for candidates who will employ strategies that will cause the deaths of thousands. If not Iraq then in Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever.

Many leftists (Iceman, Zhivodka) believe Bill Ayers had a legitimate right to use violence in opposition to the Vietnam War. Is their belief set correct? not a God given right granted to a sub-set minority?

=====================
Neat thinking as usual, Pa- prime;
Ayers is wrong , Sara Palin is right, to rebuke Ayers for that