Objective commentators
There is no such thing. What you describe are people whose stated
conclusions match yours beliefs.
See confirmation bias. Also see partisan ideologue.
*
** List info, subscription management,
While it _can_ be interesting to discuss hypotheticals and philosophy,
you can also look at actual studies of society. It's all the rage in
this country to rave about our high taxes, but one can read about what
studies show a healthy society looks like.
This is the latest study by the OECD
The Nation magazine has been completely dependent on a wealthy
benefactor
since it started publishing 100 years ago. It has yet to make one
dime of
profit on its own and would have gone out of business decades ago
otherwise.
Just to provide a slight correction and a little context here,
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10242260-2.html
I was surprised at how dull Alpha was. In contrast a Google search is
often the beginning of an adventure in learning. Google gives me lots of
hits that reprensent different options and viewpoints. I get
serependitious hits that teach me new
That base is not nearly as broad as that of The Nation,
many whose supporters are not wealthy.
Thank you. Why am I not surprised that I was being mislead? Maybe the
cons/neocons predilection for enhanced interrogarion comes from their
knowledge that they would otherwise never tell the truth.
So the choice is to read one mag who supports enhanced interrogation, or one
that thought Joe was a great guy when he was killing as many as 20,000
Russians a month?
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Tom Piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
That base is not nearly as broad as that of The Nation,
many
So the choice is to read one mag who supports enhanced interrogation, or one
that thought Joe was a great guy when he was killing as many as 20,000
Russians a month?
Those evil Ruskies are out to get us! OMG there's one under your bed!!
Interesting tool... Reverse lookup for images! Give it an image, and it
can tell you the source.
http://tineye.com/
It doesn't really tell you the source. It shows other places on the web
where that image is used. This could be a stock agency, which could
validly be called a source, but it is
How do you budget for finding a new energy source? Would we have
electric light bulbs if Edison would have been on a budget? I know he
probably funded it himself, but after the first 100 tries he'd cut
himself off we'd be sitting in the dark. And I think fusion research
is about a million
I'm continuing to use Chromium on my MacBook Pro. I downloaded the
latest build this morning. I've got a half dozen or so tabs going from
my weather source. It seems to work perfectly but Activity Monitor
doesn't like something about it.
I seem to remember reading that this browser keeps each
Thank you. Why am I not surprised that I was being mislead?
Gosh, I didn't memorize their founding date and they possibly made a profit
4 out of 144 years.
Go on Tom, put on The Who's Won't Get Fooled Again and crank it up.
You've clearly earned it.
I seem to remember reading that this browser keeps each tab in a
separate sandbox so that if there is a problem on one tab/window, that
tab or window can crash without effecting the others. If I am recalling
correctly, it would explain why there are as many Chromiums under
Process Name in
Think of those massive profits Al Gore has been racking up..and all those
watermelons who back him...GE stands to make a lot of that cash the Big O is
printing for our own little Weimar.
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Tom Piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
Think of those massive profits that
We'll start with Soros and Buffetweird how the super rich are
lefties
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Tom Piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1b__MdtHY
Long, but worth watching all the way through
At the end Bill Black starts calling it a fundamental moral
Wow, I agree with Jeff W on something. Good scientists are the only
truly objective people I've ever met. They are skeptical of
everything and everyone.
Jeff M
On May 16, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Jeff Wright wrote:
Objective commentators
There is no such thing. What you describe are
So the choice is to read one mag who supports enhanced
interrogation, or one that thought Joe was a great guy
when he was killing as many as 20,000 Russians a month?
I think that you have been confusing The Nation with The New
Republic. The New Republic was was generally quite pro-soviet
until
What? As an American, where is it my, or our job to protect Russians
by performing torture on others who aren't attacking the USA?
Sorry, but my feelings are that torture is torture. Try and rename
it and rationalize it all you want. It still, with our history of
wars and trials, a war
Yes but two wrights made an airplane.
Lets bring this back to technology.
As area that most people will agree Americans tend to excel in and
over rely on.
Stewart
At 06:19 PM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
If someone brings up 9/11, remember that old saying, 2 wrongs don't
make a right.
The problem is the legal reasoning that says it was not torture is
quite sound - the key being that as I understand it we did nothing
that we do not do to our own servicemen in the resistance portion of
SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) training. If the
assumption is that
As area that most people will agree Americans tend to excel in and
over rely on.
I hate to be disagreeable, but this is no longer something we excel at.
While propaganda from the greedy corporations that stole our Internet
will try to lull you into a false feeling of excellence, these days I
When did you last see it? What do you mean by stole it anyway?
When did we have our internet that we now do not have and was taken
from us by illicit means?
Matthew
On May 16, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
greedy corporations that stole our Internet
This suggests an easy solution for paying for current financial
bailouts.
Arrest several hundred multi-billionaires and strip them of their
ill-gotten assets, just like is currently being done with Madoff. That
should net a few $trillion in spare change. Without enforcement of
moral
hazard
When did you last see it? What do you mean by stole it anyway?
When did we have our internet that we now do not have and was taken
from us by illicit means?
I have it. It's in my basement.
The League of Extraordinary Robber Barons asked me to hold onto to it for a
couple days while their
It couldn't find my home town. It isn't that small. It might be useful as
part of a dogpile.com search result where they look at a bunch of search
engines.
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Tom Piwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10242260-2.html
I was surprised
Wow, a true convert and believer in the neocon shell game. Where's
the truth?
Jeff M
On May 16, 2009, at 1:39 PM, mike wrote:
Think of those massive profits Al Gore has been racking up..and all
those
watermelons who back him...GE stands to make a lot of that cash the
Big O is
printing
Interesting. I never thought of Buffet as a lefty, but rather a
realist.
This is something that turns me away from politics. If you don't
believe my way you're either a neocon or a lefty. Whatever happened
to independent thinkers? I believe many are out there, but one party
or the other
Yes, I've heard this argument, and it's stupid. Because we torture
our own servicemen and call it training doesn't change what it is.
However, it is a good game. I wonder how many other definitions we
can change to suit our legal needs?
Jeff M
On May 16, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Matthew Taylor
At 08:41 PM 5/16/2009 -0400, you wrote:
When did you last see it? What do you mean by stole it anyway?
When did we have our internet that we now do not have and was taken
from us by illicit means?
I have it. It's in my basement.
The League of Extraordinary Robber Barons asked me to hold
The law in an ass, and always has been as it is an imperfect creation
of an imperfect institution put in pl;ace by imperfect beings.
Nevertheless, the law determines what is legal. Either you argue that
every POTUS, ever chairman of the Joint Cheifs, and much of the senior
command staff
That base is not nearly as broad as that of The Nation,
many whose supporters are not wealthy.
Thank you. Why am I not surprised that I was being mislead? Maybe the
cons/neocons predilection for enhanced interrogarion comes from their
knowledge that they would otherwise never tell the truth.
And so legally you twist the definition because certain members of
the military agreed to have it done to them with their training. What
contract did the prisoners at Guantanamo(sp) sign? And what about the
law against any contract under duress? The argument is BS.
Jeff M
On May 16,
31 matches
Mail list logo
