toastywombel

Those who say deplatforming doesn't work and it instead only amplifies the public sentiment who are in favor of said persons being deplatformed, I would just like to point you to Alex Jones. A perfect example of how deplatforming someone does infact work. Since being deplatformed Jones has had a considerable drop in influence and money. Which I think is a good thing. Now the monopolistic practices that lead to the vast majority of public internet communications to be content controlled by a few companies is problematic. Also the undemocratic means in which this content is regulated and monetized is also problematic, but these I feel in order to prevent companies like twitter and facebook to be the arbiters of truth in social media, breaking them up by using existing anti-trust and anti-monopolistic laws is a better way to do that. I find many of the people who get upset that conservatives get banned from youtube and twitter are also the very same people who support politicians who allowed those companies to have so much power in the first place, and they don't care about the power dynamic instead they care about the fact those companies are attacking their politics. Typical "i dont' care about an issue until it personally affects me" conservatives and free marketeers. It is a weird dynamic seeing so many conservatives attack these companies disingenuously from the left, calling for them to be broken up. Especially Tucker Carlson types, Some don't remember his old days on crossfire, back then he was a 100 percent Greenspan marketeer, now hes some populist. Its also not in the pursuit of better working conditions for workers or fairer and equal pay, its about "I wanna be able to say what I wanna say to make money off people". BTW first post here in like better part of a decade so hello all lol.

The recent news of gravitational waves is quite a big turn of events. I'm curious about the implications on the randomness of quantum information in space time. As larger objects that operate under relativity seem to follow the calculations exactly. I am wondering if quanta operate differently as they are effected by a greater than 0 constant in background gravity. Much how the surface of a body of water produces waves if there are items moving around on its surface. One could imagine that a spec of dust on the surface of this body of water would be much harder to measure, and its positional change over time relative to an observer would appear much more "random" for the observer. I guess the staple principle is that the differences in measuring at the plank scale general physics and quantum mechanics has to do with the fact that quantum mechanics calculates for randomness of a certain degree, and that degree of randomness is caused by the fluctuations in space time by all the gravitational events that proceed throughout the given system and in this case the universe. Space time is more like a churning ocean, and not so much like a flat pond. Therefore very small objects on the surface of space time are more greatly effected in position constantly by a greater than zero gravity background. One could almost say gravity radiation. Thoughts? Hopefully I articulated my point clearly.

While I agree with your overall point iNow and respect your knowledgeable opinion. It should be noted that some of the money that congress allocates for military expenditures is used for scientific research. (Of course usually its scientific research limited in the scope of providing a military advantage). But I think it should be noted that military spending has brought about significant scientific advancements, however at the same time those advancements could have been achieved through other conduits than simply military research. Where did you hear that many billionaires are leaving the U.S? Also, how do you know George Soros is selling off his U.S assets? Furthermore, given the vast amount of investments he has, how do you define "U.S asset" in this now global economy??

Just when I have hope for the progression of the United States, I read an article like this, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-denies-climate-change

Okay I should clarify, when i say "conservative" I mean the current platform of the Republican/Tea Party, and those who support that platform and the answer is yes, that is a foolish position and they are fools. To your second point, please then explain the fact that their are young conservatives and old liberals.

I don't particularly believe that the United States voting populous is really that far right. Now measuring this is hard next to impossible, considering a lot of it is terminology. (Conservative is a more appealing term than Republican or that Progressive is a more appealing term than liberal.) That being said the demographics have changed so drastically in the last decade that I believe, unless the republican party does a major re-branding. They are destined to lose. Especially with their hard lined stance against everything good. I mean the Republican party has literally turned into the evil party. . . . and it seems they have replaced their original libertarian philosophies, which at least hold some intellectual honesty with downright bull. . . Furthermore with the continued advancement in age of our younger generations, myself included, who by the way gain their news from the internet, (Republicans don't have the stronghold on media as they once did) will continue to ensure the republican's demise. Ignorance can only last so long. The advancement of mankind has a liberal bias. However, that all being said, the Democratic Party is as easily corrupted.

The amount of anecdotal evidence to support statements is just ridiculous. Maybe when I have enough time I will counter with a thoughtful response that is sourced and backed up by facts. Or maybe I can just wait for iNow to respond haha. Finally I think this actually undermines the point you were trying to make "In my hospital the cardiology consultants got caught because they pushed for funding for an outpatient cardio clinic but they still saw their patients in the hospital. They were double charging for their patients. If you double charged a patient privately they would know about it but because it was NHS they got away with it for years." Furthermore, if you double charge a patient privately, the patient does not always know about it, because the patient's insurance company is charged not the patient directly. In case you are unaware this happens all the time. Hospitals routinely run up the bills they send to insurers and in turn insurers forward the costs to their customers. Hospitals do this because of the combination of medical costs, pharma costs, and the cost for doctors. Finally since you dipped into the grab bag of Milton Friedman, here are some other grand ideas he advocated for. Just to kind of give some credence to the expert you mentioned "Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax, and education vouchers." "A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development." He did however add this caveat, "Let me emphasize that this note is not a plea for a return to a gold standard.... I regard a return to a gold standard as neither desirable nor feasible—with the one exception that it might become feasible if the doomsday predictions of hyperinflation under our present system should prove correct."[48] He said the reason that it was not feasible was because "there is essentially no government in the world that is willing to surrender control over its domestic monetary policy." However, it could be done if "you could re-establish a world in which government's budget accounted for 10 percent of the national income, in which laissez-faire reigned, in which governments did not interfere with economic activities and in which full employment policies had been relegated to the dustbin..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

I think that two political parties are fine, as long as their are limits on spending and fundraising by all parties and candidates.

Also Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will never win. True, however I don't think the Democratic party is quite as radical as the republican party at this time. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is as left wing radical as Ted Cruz is right wing radical.

I am a market socialist as well. However defining terms mean really little when we have not done so much as to define them. capitalism, as in unleashed capitalism or laissez faire capitalism is really outdated and terrible. Social programs that are paid for cooperatively by the people through a progressive tax system are the aspects of socialism I support. They make the service available to all which benefits society, and it also makes the service cheaper per capita, provided the government is not corrupted by the influence of money. Infrastructure (roads, communications, etc) Healthcare (at least a level of healthcare) Care for the poor Education (higher education should be made available to all willing citizens) Emergency Services Military Services Prison Systems Furthermore public investment into new ideas is something that socialism brings to the table. Technologies and endeavors which may not yet be cost effective, however their benefits still outweigh their costs in the long run, is something only the public sector can do, as the private sector is consistently trying to make a profit. (NASA) This is all the biggest load of hog wash with no data or anything but anecdotal evidence to back it up. I could look up a bunch of stuff that I have before, like the fact that their are democratized work places that thrive, or that most research shows that when employees are paid more they perform better. . . . But of course I'm just one of those guys too who has never held a managerial position and doesn't have a job . . . .. Unless you include being the Leasing Manager an apartment complex that has 2044 units and brings in about 2,500,000 in rent every month. Finally, the fact that the owner should reap all the benefits because he takes all the risk? What about the employee that could go work for Giant Corporation A instead decides to work for your company that was started by taking out a second mortgage and all that jazz, shouldn't he be rewarded. Sounds like his risk would be just as great, especially considering he doesn't have the capital available to him that the owner of the business you cited as an example does. The entrepreneur is nothing without the consumer, when the CEO's gut their employees (the consumer) they only end up screwing themselves in the long run. It starts with the demand. Always has always will. 10,000,000 will have more consumer power in the hands of 1000 people as opposed to being in the hands of one.

That ticket would lose in the primary, in 2016. However it is obvious that the political landscape is shifting leftwards in the Untied States. Possibly 2024 Elizabeth Warren could win. But Bernie Sanders is a self proclaimed "socialist" no way he would make it through the vetting process, nor do I think he would want to be a vice president. I really think that it will be tough next to impossible for the GOP to win the president if they continue their current platform, only way it happens is if they elect a libertarian-esque candidate. The tea party republicans and traditional GOP just polarize the majority of the electorate with their social platforms. That all said, I think if Hillary runs, she wins. I believe winner takes all voting is a good thing as long as terms, term limits and a balance of powers system is in place. The winner of an election needs some level of control in order to carry out his or hers agenda.

If you want us to sit here and say the the Russian government under Putin is a beacon of hope and a good example of a model Nation. It is just not going to happen. While he may not be Stalin, he certainly is not running a very progressive government by any means.

Very well said

alkis, I will not argue that Russia has these weapons, but the United States has the upper hand on Russia in any conventional ground war bar none. Furthermore, that war would never happen as I said earlier. It would be a cold war, one waged on the economic and geopolitical influence scale. One that the United States would also win. I don't agree with the imperialistic nature of the United States at all. I will however say that the United States is probably the most powerful country that ever has been.

I think that their is a cultural/ language barrier between us, and unfortunately we cannot overcome that.