Fascism is philosophically opposed to liberalism. This was actually explained quite explicitly by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile in the treatise "The Doctrine of Fascism".

National Socialism is actually a fairly apt nomenclature of the German absorption of Fascist ideals from a political standpoint, because Fascism specifically views the society, and its subsets of individuals, corporations and other legal entities as only relational to the nation-state apparatus.

It's also important to note that the Nazi party was quite literally the most right wing political option during Germany's elections, while they were still going on.

Multiple lines of research actually predicted this a few years ago. In fact, there was already an announcement made in 2011 that a new solar minimum would occur. You can do a quick Google search to verify this. But the expectation was that we quite possibly should have already been experiencing it.

Solar activity is generally very predictable. Around every 11 years, the sun enters a cycle of increased activity. And then after a while it settles down. If this announcement is in fact accurate, it looks like it's making the already established prediction more precise, not establishing a totally new body of knowledge that contradicts climate science.

That being said, solar activity isn't the primary agent for the current rise in average global temperatures. Multiple lines of independent evidence strongly suggest that human activity is the primary cause and that hasn't changed.

AIDS is a clinical state caused by an immunodeficiency virus. It can't go airborne. Even if that wasn't the case, having legal recognition won't make anything except for gay marriage more widespread. I'm not even sure if you're serious, which is unfortunate.

I think that they should simply implement some kind of voter-identification card upon voter-registration. And for those who are already registered and on't have such a card, they can make a route to getting it easy or something. I don't know how the exact mechanics would work to facilitate such a thing, since some people who are legal residence don't have photo identification in the first place. But, it should be done.

Why do Dems constantly credit Republicans for what they are trying to do?

I'm not a Democrat. If you read my point more carefully, you'll notice that I'm not giving Republicans credit for what the Democrats did. All I pointed out was that the final bill wasn't very Liberal and was similar to the bills Republicans tried to pass in the past.

I hear "Republicans do it" just about as much as I hear "Let me be clear."

Okay.

Why don't we just elect Republicans then instead of Dems who keep saying all they are doing is what Republicans do.

I'm fairly positive that there will be a few Republicans voted into office.

Honestly?!

Yes.

Isn't he the one who passed the universal healthcare bill?

So did Republicans. But it's not the passing of the legislation that makes it liberal. What we got was a version of two different bills that had been tried in the past: the Republican healthcare reform of the 90s and the Mitt Romney bill in this last decade, with a vast number of the further amendments coming directly from Republicans (many of whom later rejected the bill on the grounds that it had legislation that they themselves put in it).

Obama is about as Liberal as North Korea is a people' republic. He hasn't enacted any real or authentically liberal policies.

There's an important juxtaposition that's not being mentioned. Most scientists are Liberal - and that includes the "rocket scientists". Most educators and academicians are also Liberal. So while Liberals are actors, we're also scientists. While some of us are definitely under-and-uneducated, we also have the teachers and the most educated. Your point seems ultimately... pointless.

I always have failed to see the logic in liberalism.

Quick counterpoise: while watching this year's CPAC convention, I saw conservative, Republican women who were planning to vote participate in the ridiculing of progressivism. If you can't figure out the disconnect there, I can understand precisely why you also don't see the logic in liberalism.

I like what micromike123 wrote on June 25, 2010 07:18 AM. Root's article seems like a lot of misinformation, hyperbole, and very little truth.

Jesus was also a Jew, but that's never stopped Christians.

It depends on the circumstance. In public spaces (i.e streets), there is no expectation of privacy, so you can take pictures of or videotape a vast number of things: including basically any person, people boning in a park or someone's underwear. Or even skorts.

Once again, all speculative.

You can repeat this until your fingers rot and fall off. Academic performance is quantitative. Social mobility is quantitative. The human development index is quantitative. It's not speculation.

To me, 300 million people is too much to keep in control and fully happy no matter what we do.

To you. So you're speculating. But that's shifting the goal post and obfuscating the issue. I have never once proposed that anyone can or should be "fully happy".

But no matter what, bigger government is an attack on freedom.

An unsubstantiated position. But name something that people can do in America and not in Amsterdam, or France, or Great Britain, or Iceland or Denmark.

I'm not going to address #2 because I really think it's one of the most stupid arguments I've encountered on the internet.

The government forcing people to do shit, like give up property or pay for things that they don't wish to pay for.

All governments do this. There will always be a time in any government where it will be spending money on something someone somewhere does not want to pay for. Almost all governments can cite eminent domain, stripping property from anyone--that isn't unique to socialism or communism or fascism. The State and Federal government does it often in America.

Capitalism, itself, doesn't force anyone to do anything.

Capitalism is an economic model and set of economic principles. That's it. Stop personifying and socializing it. In a free market system, the market is unregulated. That has no impact on whether the government regulates you as a person. The free-state of the market in a country has no necessary consequence to the free-state of the people.

Socialism - Pay the government or pay the consequences.

What government doesn't demand this?

Capitalism - Do what you like; i don't care.

No: private ownership of the means of production, whose labor and capital is traded on a market, and profit is shared throughout owners and investors. It ain't got nothing to do with you doing what you like and no one caring.

yes, capitalism is more free.

For companies, not for the individual.

but your free of government regulation.

You're not free of government regulation. It's a "free market" and not a "free people" system.

All speculative.

Among the lowest social mobility:

Hertz, Tom. "Understanding Mobility in America". American University For the Center for American Progress. 2006.

Julia Isaacs et al. "Getting ahead or losing ground: economic mobility in America". The Brookings Institution. 2008.

Mazumder, Bhashkar. "Fortunate Sons: New Estimates of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States Using Social Security Earnings Data". Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Sawhill, Elizabeth and John Morton. "Economic mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well?".

Stephen Machin et al. "Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America". Center for Economic Performance. 2005.

Not speculative

Standard of Living

America is also lagging behind in terms of its human development index. There is also negligible difference between the American standard of living and high-income quasi-socialist (according to American standards) countries like Denmark (which should be an example to all other countries on the planet).

Not speculative

Education

American students compare poorly to their developed counterparts. It's not all speculation.

Government regulation uses force.

All systems use force, or there would be no way to maintain the system. The fundamental distinction is whether the force is passive/tacit, or overt.

Capitalist freedom does not. You are able to choose for yourself under capitalist freedom.

You can choose to do anything under any system of discipline. Only the consequences differ. In school, you can choose to not study or even attend. But there will be consequences. A government can create laws, but you or anyone else is free to break those laws. But there will be consequences. You can freely choose to not participate in a Capitalist system, but there will be consequences. Consequence is force. The threat of starving for the rest of your life or not being able to participate in the sociopolitical process is force.

If you mean basic government functions, that's under both socialism and capitalism, but socialism adds a shit load more force.

Socialism doesn't add anything, as we can see by countries like Denmark, Holland, Germany, France. These people aren't magically more unfree or under the durress of government involvement than Americans because they have higher levels of public institutions and involvement. That is absurd. Again, reality is trumping you.

Well, I'm not a Conservative so I guess this didn't apply to me, thus meaning that it was irrelevant to what I was saying.

Based on the history of your debates on this website, you are most definitely Conservative. And you're not moderate. Your statements are a matter of public record here.

Like the government.

Not inherently. And this is precisely evidenced by the fact that in many countries around the world, the government has played an inestimable role in increasing social mobility, overall happiness, standards of living, academic advancement and scientific literacy, among other indexes of modern nations.

Only difference between government regulation and Capitalist failure is that government regulation is by force.

All systems use force.

Seems way more unfair than just letting people try to solve their own damned problems.

Most people do this anyway.

and yes, if a guy can't get laid and you can, it would be leveling the playing field to give him a bit of the action that you are receiving.

I find it interesting that it's conservatives who invariably look at their fellow human beings as chattel. Women aren't property. But this is nothing more than a poorly constructed false analogy.

1) Try not to argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

2) Fail 1) occasionally.

3) Always bring a handkerchief.

4) There are no women on the internet.

5) Greet others more often.

6) Smile more.

7) Make sure to hit the bowl.

8) Go #2 heartily and with great enthusiasm.

9) If you are a man, when using public facilities look straight ahead.

10) Be aware of the bear and nondescript vans.

11) Regardless of what country one comes from, male genitalia should be considered a national treasure.

12) Be careful of traps. The other kind.

13) Be prepared at all times to use a spoon to kill someone.

14) A fool has to say something, a wise man has something to say.

15) Your cup of knowledge should always be empty, even as it is being filled.

I'm going to downvote you and give you a reply.

you know... leveling the playing field.

That isn't leveling the playing field. That's just letting you fuck someone's wife/girlfriend.

Or... we could just accept that everyone has their flaws and must work past them without government interfering and making life shitty for everyone.

Or! Or... we can be a little more honest and recognize that there is a system in place, with historical roots and antagonistic forces, that does stifle some members' abilities to work beyond their problems and gives unfavorable and disproportionate advantage to others, and it snot necessarily based on merit or capacity.

And idealism doesn't trump reality. For example, America has one of the lowest social mobility indexes in the developed world. All of those quasi-socialist European countries, with their government involvement and socioeconomic regulatory mechanisms are performing better than America in nearly every quantitative and qualitative index. And, yes, I can support these assertions.

I think that my childhood abandoned me that one time I saw a pedophile get stoned to death in front of my school in the Spring of 1998.

... (-_-)

But, there is good news. My inner child returned in the Fall of '99.

"No other can can do what the MEXI-can can!" (I expect all royalties for this catchphrase, Joe.)

I don't know how else you interpret "provide" Of course it has to be defined how it does that, but that it does it is the important point.

You may have read a part of the legislation (or all of it), but you clearly don't fully understand the writing. As per Title I. Subtitle B, the government is only facilitating an environment wherein high risk customers can buy health insurance from health insurance issuers.

OK, so I've been reading through the bill and I came across this just as an example of how the government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives.

Title I. Subtitle B is about the creation of an interim high risk pool: including people with preexisting conditions. Eligible individuals (d) will be able to purchase health insurance from already existing providers (B)(C)(e). They are also afforded regulatory protections (e) as participating members of the high risk pool. The subtitle also goes on to explicate possible management options for this high risk pool. The suggestions range from non-profits to the various states (2).

OK help me with this one; how is the federal government providing health insurance to millions of Americans not nationalized health care

The federal government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives. That was the point of the Public Option, which doesn't exist anymore. And a Public Insurance Option isn't "nationalized health care".

My only point will be that we're not getting nationalized health care. We're getting health insurance reform.

Your Utopia seems more like a heterotopia in the way it operates.

You correctly answered 11 out of the 12 possible questions, which means you did better on the quiz than 92% of the general public.

Mmm. Yummy. A Jamaican knows more about these things than 92% of Americans. Some of those demographics are actually quite appalling, though.

18-29 year olds got a mean score of ~4. Men 6. Women ~5. 30-50+ ~6.

Hitler was for nationalized heath care.

Bismark instituted nationalized healthcare in the late 19th century through three major pieces of legislation. Hitler attempted to revoke the health insurance bills of 1883, 84 and 89. However, the German people rebuffed him for it and he had to back down and keep the institution intact. And both Bismarck and Hitler were avid German conservatives.

Name one thing that Hitler promoted that is now being promoted by conservatives.

I could: Nationalism and criticism of sexual permissiveness, to name a few, but why would I? American conservatism isn't German conservatism and German conservatism wasn't American conservatism in the middle of the 20th century. Equally, Liberal policies don't, in any way mimic the policies of Hitler and the Nazi party--not in the middle 20th century and not now.

And clearly you didn't read what I wrote. Let me repeat myself, since you missed it. "Fascism in both Italy and Germany were right-wing in their respective countries, and bore little (superficial at best) resemblance to the liberalism of the day." Furthermore, in both Italy and Germany, Fascists ran on an anti-liberalism platform, and in Germany the Nazi party purposefully positioned itself to the right of the DNVP, the original right-wing party of Germany in the 20th century. A simple look at the political framework and the platforms the parties themselves drew and founded would tell you that.

Below is the political spectrum of Germany in the time of Hitler.

Far left <---Communist Party (KPD)---><---Social Democrats (SPD)---><---Catholic Center party (Zentrum)---><---German Nationalist People's Party (DNVP)---><---Nationalist Socialist Party (NSDAP)---> Far Right

Furthermore, Nazi ideology was one of mythology: volk, one of anti-liberalism, anti-socialism and anti-communism, and lebensraum to name a few. Hitler was a German conservative, a radical European right-winger.

Fascism in both Italy and Germany were right-wing in their respective countries, and bore little (superficial at best) resemblance to the liberalism of the day. End of story.

Outside of Medicare/aid, there is no "nationalized health care" in America. And while I'm not sure what you're referencing with drug companies, unions are only exempt from, most recently, the "Cadillac Tax".

at least for teens... love is only in their jeans...wait.... ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjqthfe4LYo

So do I. But the "entitlement" in entitlement program ain't got nothing to do with whether people feel like they're owed anything. That's not how the term is used. It's from the classical usage, not the modern one. That is, it's about assurance that citizens and some legal-aliens are guaranteed benefits that they otherwise wouldn't receive in the absence of certain resources.

I have a terminological disagreement. Though federal entitlement programs might appear (and might be "charitable"), they are not charities. To represent them as such, and to disagree with their utility as such, is to misrepresent an entitlement program. Federal apportioning of tax dollars isn't charity.

I think people need to stop deifying the contemporary politicians, pointing to them as if they are some infallible god heads.

Shame on anyone who deifies anyone or anything. But, with respect to opinions on contemporary issues, I'm sticking with contemporary politicians. And I will actively agree or disagree with their opinions. I nor anyone else can do that with a bunch of people whose opinions on things that didn't even exist when they were alive are static and only relevant to constrained and particular issues 300 years-ago.

FCC regulations when it comes to speech is an attack on freedom of speech.

What are those regulations that are deemed tyrannical?

And property being our money. Our money is our property, and if the government is to cease it for the benefit of a select few (welfare recipients) it would be considered tyrannical (mainly from the Libertarian viewpoint, following Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, possibly not John Adams or Alexander Hamilton).

Money isn't property, though.

I think you should watch the video. It's just more unsubstantiated rhetoric. There's no evidence brought to the front that shows that the government in question is tyrannical. It's just assumed.

...it's on the ceasing of property.

Whose property, and what makes the event tyrannical?

Left and Right, censorship is supported by politicians and this is tyrannical.

Ejemplos por favor. Who is being censored?

And people need to stop deifying the founding fathers, pointing to them as if they are some infallible godheads. They lived in a social and political atmosphere that was fundamentally different from the one most people in the world lives in now. Their 18th century opinion isn't necessarily or universally relevant, or even applicable in any case of modern considerations.

One day a nurse at an insane asylum entered a room to discover that everyone inside of it had been decapitated. The man who did it was standing in the room with a head in his hand. The nurse called the authorities, and when they arrived the man was still there with the head in hand. When asked why he did it, he said "I wanted to see the expression on their faces when they woke up"....

Go to http://www.newegg.com or http://www.tigerdirect.com, they are the two most popular, and probably best distributors around for electronics. And yes, they have netbook sections just for you, Joe. Netbooks are meant to be slipstreamed laptops. They're good for office work and the like. Most won't come with anything over 1GB and about 200Gb harddrive. The processor will probably be around 2ghz at best. So, the specs you mentioned are typical. And yes and no the numbers are indicative of a superior product. Though there are subspecs that are needed to make a better assessment that most people don't care about.

For instance, while there is a processor speed (eg. 1.5ghz) a single core 3.0ghz might be faster than a dualcore at 2.13ghz if the cache is larger on the single core. Memory is similar. If things like throughput are higher on a higher-end memory stick, 1gb of a higher-end memory might outperform 2gb of lower-end memory.

punctuated equilibrium. And why did Mr Gould propose that theory?

Because gradualism did not account for every observation ever made. Punctuated Equilibrium explains radical evolutionary change in reaction to fast environmental transformation. There's no problem with PE.

The Cambrian Explosion. Why is that a problem? Because it destroys the theory of gradual descent.

It "destroys" some assumptions of gradualism, but it does not destroy evolution or evolutionary theory. The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of some Punctuated Equilibrium and gradualism, because we see a continuation of certain phyla. Genomics ratifies this.

About the orgin of life, what I'm claiming is that you have no explanation for it and can't account for it.

Abiogenesis is not included in evolutionary theory, because evolution occurs after life has already started.

About the Lemur, the're still Lemurs. All this is an example of micro evolution, small variations with in a species, which nobody denies.

Allopatric and Sympatric Speciation processes have been observed in nature and the laboratory. We can also interpolate macroevolutionary diversification from paleontological research: the fossil record; comparative morphology: body plans, hox genes, similarities and differences in phenotypes and phenotypic function, vestigial or basal features; through population genetics: gene frequency change over time, the fact that genes are transmitted through reproduction across generations and can be phylogenetically traced and lineages formed categorically; through comparative virology: endogenous retroviruses among others. And the thing is, these all overlap and if there isn't any evolution occurring within and across species, then these disciplines would not be in agreement.

And we all know what will happen if the gene pool is expanded, they'll revert to back the most common characteristics.

This is demonstrably absurd.

Theres a difference between the reasonable standard of living and trying to support a family.

I disagree. For most people with families, and this will more than likely include you if and when you have one, a reasonable standard of living necessarily includes supporting the family.

I think that if you are able to work, you don't need welfare.

Not everyone in this country can gain employment with sufficient pay and/or (or not) benefits to live in this country.

We need programs that encourage kids to start working and saving money at a young age...

We certainly do, but in the kind of country we live in, it is difficult and sometimes impossible for some to save money.

Any healthy able person can make it in this country.

"Make it" needs to be qualified. Because the vast majority of people in America and around the world don't "make it".

But again and again people make it and inspire others to make it. Difficult doesn't = impossible that is flawed logic.

And they are always, always, the exception to the rule. That's why they're inspirations.

I support you in that I agree that people who don't need welfare shouldn't get it. But I dispute you, as well, in that it isn't always so obviou as to who needs or does not need welfare. I worked through much of college at FedEx. There I met people who were working two or three jobs, simultaneously. Working the night shift at FedEx (~10PM-3AM), another job during the day, and for some, another on the weekend. And many still needed welfare because they couldn't afford to have a reasonable standard of living or support a family.

So how exactly do you calculate who "needs" welfare?

There are two instances where "the general welfare" is added into the Constitution. The first instance is in the preamble, which is a declarative position of the people. It has no legal bearing beyond a kind of "moral" one.

In the legal documentation (the preamble does not constitute a legal or "Constitutional" position), the Constitution states, in Section 8 of Article 1, that "the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;....". So you're right and wrong. And I would add that I think that public health and the ability to survive has at least something to do with the general welfare of the nation. And if it doesn't, then there really isn't such a thing as "general welfare" at all.

I also find it humorous that the guy in the video is complaining about fighting against a tyrannical government while being able to practice his first amendment rights with no threat of government intervention. What kind of tyrannical regime does that?!

The analogy of the grades was perfect.

The example in the OP is really only a strawman.

While the actual act of passing the healthcare bill will be a grand victory, it will also end up being one of the greatest failures.

The point the lecturer made was that many of the programs being created or revamped have not been tested. Add this to the fact it was written in such a hurry and you've a cocktail of problems unforeseeable and foreseeable for the years to come.

What programs were mentioned, and if they are untested, how can there be both unforseen and forseen problems, and what was the name of the seminar and who were the contributors? Please answer the entire question.

David: slayer of giants, badass wife-stealing, husband-killing king

Immanuel: god is with us

Miller: ...worker in a mill

I am therefore, a badass wife-stealing, husband killing, giant slaying king whom god is with, that works in a mill.

No one can beat that.

Well, after reading the CBO report, I don't know why I should accept what the Washington Journal article has to say.

On the House bill, a CBO letter to congressman Paul Ryan states: CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting H.R. 3962, by itself, would reduce federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period through its effects on direct spending and revenues.

http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/ press/2007/pr20091119cboscore.pdf (letter from CBO to Paul Ryan)

On the Senate bill, the CBO letters to Reid: According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $130 billion over the 2010–2019 period... (And here's the kicker on the senate bill) The estimate includes a projected net cost of $599 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $848 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $149 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $100 billion in net savings from other sources. Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $491 billion and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $238 billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf (report)

Who should I adhere to? Some opinion article in the Washington journal or the reports themselves? HMMMMMM, that one is reaaaaalllly hard. Come on Joe.

So why is it more reasonable to conclude that the similarities are because of a theory that is least likely (common ancestry) than one that is more likely (common design)

Evidence: homologous structures, endogenous retroviruses, body plans, genetics etc. etc.

And the quotes you provide are out of context, misrepresentations of what the people were arguing--quote-mined.

The CMPA is a conservative funded organization. Is it really that surprising that a conservative funded "nonpartisan" organization found that the most conservative "news" media organization is the most balanced?

The first time through the game, I actually fought Flemmeth after the end of the game with my Blood Mage (I decided to follow through on my tainted character after "a moment of weakness" by having sex with the demon inside Arl Eamon's son's body). I had gotten her Grimoire from the Circle, but forgot to follow up on it until after a certain whore of a woman left my party near the end.

The second time, I had hacked the game with a memory scanner. I was just curious how my badass decisions (the first time I played a nice guy) would impact the ending, so I went through it quick. But I just slew her for the fun of it, you can do that kind of thing with an uber powerful Assassin.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you, or are you not, an American citizen?

No. Greencard/permanent resident.

I thought you're from another country.

I am--Jamaican, born and raised.

How can you possibly benefit from U.S. health care if you're from another country?

Permanent residents pay taxes and can benefit from entitlement programs. I happen to have work-provided healthcare, but I'll still be a proponent of a strong public option and increased regulations on the private market (or whatever we can call private healthcare insurance).

Or are you hoping they will allow illegals to benefit from our health care as well?

I wouldn't mind illegals participating in any healthcare program. 1) illegal aliens already benefit from laws mandating emergency service from doctors to patients. And tax payers have to cover that, in the billions, annually--that's you and me. 2) if they are paying their premiums, which they'd have to do to get any insurance anyway (and many do already), then that just increases the risk pool and lowers cost. 3) it's more money circulating in the economy and ultimately a good thing for it. 4) It might very well increase the likelihood of discovering who exactly is an illegal alien in this country. Sure, they're here illegally, and I am against that--especially as someone who had to spend near a decade in the country just to get a Greencard. But if they're benefiting the country in the general sense, it's win-win.