-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Does reality truly have a liberal bias?
- Thread starter TacticalFox88
- Start date
- Status
Half and half
Member
TacticalFox88 said:
The Individual Responsibility provision (aka mandate) says everyone has to get it, and the feds take steps to help those that can't afford it. That counts as universal health care.
And not everyone in Europe has a single payer system.
TacticalFox88
Banned
White privilege FUCK YEA!Devolution said:
Riposte
Member
Being white is pretty much the best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
blame space
Banned
1925: The Hesselman engine is introduced by Swedish engineer Jonas Hesselman represented the first use of direct gasoline injection on a spark-ignition engine.[10][11]
1925
did they even have smartphones in 1925? why is this still a thing
1925
did they even have smartphones in 1925? why is this still a thing
I'm not trying to harp on semantics, but the idea that the American system has political/election programmes as some Europeans put it just shows a fundamental ignorance of the way politics works in the US. Obama was never given a chance to govern in the manner of Heads of Government from Britain, France, Germany, etc. Obama and the Democratic Party won with decent majorities in 2008, but we do not have a party and parliamentary system where those kinds of majorities translate into a government which then has the ability to implement and direct a series of policies that they ran on. Obama had/has to contend with a sea of individual Congressman from a right-wing opposition party, a centrist to center-right wing of his own party, and a center-left wing of his party that is rife with ideological contradictions (Rich, Pro-Wallstreet, supportive of things like gay rights vs. more economically left but with rural white constituencies). The only way anything gets done is with severe compromise.Hypnotoad said:
I will not at all excuse any shifts that Obama has made, but I also won't pretend that the failures of the last three years aren't primarily due to the total disfunction of the US legislative branch, and our two-party system.
I'm sorry for going on a bit, but the 'Obama As Superman hype' is wrong in two dimensions. First, the idea that he wants to do X, and second that he can do X.
blame space
Banned
kame-sennin
Member
TacticalFox88 said:
No it's doesn't.
Insurance company stocks spiked when Obama's health care bill was passed. Having the government force millions of Americans to buy your product is good for business. The restrictions and regulations put into the bill are trivial and will not affect profits. Both parties are heavily lobbied by the insurance industry, so there was never any doubt that health care reform would bend in their favor. The "health care debate" is just political posturing performed to solidify the base and undermine the opposing party. The only possibly outcomes were 'force millions of Americans to buy private insurance and boost industry profits' (D) or 'decrease regulation to boost industry profits' (R).
SneakyStephan
Banned
Bu bu but then we might have to pay more taxes!
Me me me memememememe ....
Me.
Me me me memememememe ....
Me.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I am beginning to loathe words like liberalism and conservatism. They are completely divorced of their original intent and therefore robbed of meaning. Hayek was completely right about this. Why is liberalism attached to the left? It makes no damned sense.
Anyway, I do believe that for many Republicans, small government is the ultimate overriding ideology. Even amongst guys like Boehner, it is such a powerful instinct that they have had to convince themselves that merely shrinking government will boost economic growth. That's why you see the absurd idea that revoking the healthcare law and cutting government jobs is the key to prosperity. If businesses really were their biggest priority, then I think that they'd actually listen to businesses and address the number one concern, which is sales.
I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that regulations will not affect profits. Banning certain practices (like discrimination of pre-existing conditions) will bite simply because the insurance companies were using those practices to boost profits. It's just that the individual mandate will more than make up for it. As a corollary, it is thought that premiums will also fall too.kame-sennin said:
Anyway, I do believe that for many Republicans, small government is the ultimate overriding ideology. Even amongst guys like Boehner, it is such a powerful instinct that they have had to convince themselves that merely shrinking government will boost economic growth. That's why you see the absurd idea that revoking the healthcare law and cutting government jobs is the key to prosperity. If businesses really were their biggest priority, then I think that they'd actually listen to businesses and address the number one concern, which is sales.
Liberalism and conservatism are meant to co-exist as is required by society.
Liberalism inevitably moves us forward, while conservatism keeps us from reaching out too far too fast, from flying too close to the Sun.
Neither is completely right or wrong, they are both equally mistaken and are only correct when they are looked at as part of a whole, as is true of any other dualistic aspect.
Anyone who attains to any permanent state of fixed awareness is out of sync with the continuous changing nature of, well, Nature, and the state of constant revolution both internal and external is what brings profound truth, rather than simple acceptance.
The only valid perspective is the permanent state of alignment with the perpetually changing nature of reality.
Liberalism inevitably moves us forward, while conservatism keeps us from reaching out too far too fast, from flying too close to the Sun.
Neither is completely right or wrong, they are both equally mistaken and are only correct when they are looked at as part of a whole, as is true of any other dualistic aspect.
Anyone who attains to any permanent state of fixed awareness is out of sync with the continuous changing nature of, well, Nature, and the state of constant revolution both internal and external is what brings profound truth, rather than simple acceptance.
The only valid perspective is the permanent state of alignment with the perpetually changing nature of reality.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
That's why I play video games. Fuck liberals.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
You're describing progressivism.meadowrag said:
blame space
Banned
what do u hate about itGamer98 said:
Something Wicked
Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Yeah... no. Climatology is essentially the sociology of the actual sciences- in that, it's not very comprehensive from a technical perspective and you don't have to be all too smart to become a "climatologist."
Blind environmentalism is just as bad and moronic as blindly following everything in the Bible/Torah/Koran. AGW is on a similar level as "Intelligent Design" in the realms of probability and scientific rigor.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
Korey said:
this is hilarious.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Pretty much. Our legislature is so fucked.Hokuten said:
Mortrialus
Banned
Something Wicked said:
Keep telling yourself that. It might just come true.
That's irrelevant. The point of the reform was never and should never have been about punishing insurance companies and lessening their profits. It was about trying to curb these insurance companies' ability to cheat people out of coverage and avoid certain regulations through loop holes. Also keep in mind many representatives on the left called for a public option or in some rare cases even a single-payer system. Obviously neither of those calls had a chance of going through, but it was for reasons other than some conspiracy about how corporations dominate every aspect of American politics. They have a large influence yes, but it's not as pronounced as your overly-cynical post seems to imply.kame-sennin said:
blame space
Banned
Gamer98 said:
i'm not a big fan of slavery either
Vincent Alexander
Member
Smartest Junior on these boards. Well said.Hokuten said:
Not that the rest are dumb...I still like you
empty vessel
Member
q_q said:
It's more pronounced.
GhaleonQ
Member
Korey said:
? Even assuming that historical consensus is correct, alcohol prohibition (we could debate numbers, but "significant" is beyond doubt), law enforcement in cities, eugenics, welfare reform, education, no-fault divorce, and anticommunism (generally speaking; obviously, it manifested in ways approved of and disapproved of by mainstream opinion) is not a bad record in the historians' win column. That's leaving out the debatable stuff.
Plus, to me, crowing about liberalism with the budget and entitlement/health care costs of today is like admiring the Titanic's hull when it was docked.
Half and half
Member
kame-sennin said:
The removal of lifetime coverage limits, having to take high risk people and spending only 15%/20% of each of our dollars on administrative costs is going to be a big old kick in the balls for some of these companies.
Edit:
Also, states can opt out if they come up with something better (ex. Single payer). Insurance companies are probably not too thrilled about that.
Something Wicked
Member
Qwomo said:
Yes, it truly is nice to able to think for oneself- to be able to read/analyze scientific papers and assess the probability of each claim in such papers.
SouthernDragon
Member
Something Wicked said:
GAF does have well respected, accomplished scientists frequenting the boards! Welcome to GAF. Care to post your credentials and links to your papers detailing the extensive analysis done under scientific rigor disproving the concept of climate change? Surely you won't mind, considering your field of expertise is meritocratic and thousands upon thousands of your peers are evaluating the evidence for and against climate change every day.
I do sometimes wonder if the smarter republicans are embarrassed to be associated with people who deny blatantly obvious things like climate change and evolution. I mean, clearly not all republicans do deny these things, but such beliefs do seem to be confined to their side, largely.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
The answer to some of the problems in health care, such as information asymmetry, actually suggests to me a system that should be carefully thought out with the help of the government. In other words, I don't think the answer is less state influence.GhaleonQ said:
Other entitlements are more difficult to peg simply because they transcend mere political divisions. You can rework the tax code and end exemptions and still wring more revenue out of the system. You can introduce competition and innovation to large and expansive government services. We need to borrow ideas from all parts of the ideological sphere.
Sacrifices will have to be made, but I don't think anyone should apologize for some of the progress that has already occurred.
Shalashaska
Member
Something Wicked
Member
FlightOfHeaven said:
Yeah, no official papers- just a recent chemical engineering grad, but I here's a part of something I wrote awhile back concerning ice core data (for the record, it was written with intention of being relatively readable for the mainstream, nothing too technical):
These estimations of the average temperatures of the polar regions
present another dubious assumption in current climatological studies.
Ice core samples have been the central source of information for many
climatologists, as they have been used to provide estimated
temperatures and CO¬2 levels of previous centuries and millennia. For
temperature data, climatologists have used the ratio of two oxygen
isotopes, 16O and 18O, which apparently this ratio is relatively
consistent in water molecules of ocean waters throughout the globe.
Since the isotope 18O is heavier (it has 2 more neutrons than 16O), it
evaporates less than 16O given a certain temperature. Thus,
climatologists have correlated the ratio between the isotopes in ice
cores to a particular temperature of the ice, as the ice is composed
of precipitated ocean water. This correlation was then extrapolated
in a linear regression to produce an isotope ratio versus temperature
curve. However, the relationship between the isotope ratio and an
exact temperature is rife with inaccuracy. First, the precipitation
rate of the isotope ratio is not exactly constant. Second, water in
the ice can be transient, as pressure increases as the ice depth
increases. This pressure can liquefy and vaporize the water, which
then can move throughout other parts of the ice. The movement of
water in the ice core can alter the original precipitated isotope
ratio. Third, the temperatures originally correlated to the ratios
are average temperatures of the surface of the ice taken in the 60s
and 70s. The assumption that the average of temperatures of the
surfaces of Greenland and Antarctica produce the same ratio of 16O and
18O then as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago provides
another layer of uncertainty.
The precision that many climatologists use concerning percentages of
CO2 in the ice cores is also highly questionable. Different parts of
the ice core are tested for amounts of CO2 in them and carbon-dated to
roughly determine when the gas entered the ice. Climatologists claim
that the CO2 and air are trapped in bubbles in the ice, however
since they are gasses, the CO2 and air molecules will diffuse
throughout the solid ice regardless. Various climatological equations
attempt to use a standard diffusion constant to compensate for the gas
movement. Nevertheless, they assume temperatures and pressures needed
to find the value of the constant, yet such exact temperatures and
pressures are undeterminable. Also, similar to the issues of the
isotope ratio, the liquefaction of the ice from high pressures will
cause random distributions of CO2 from the different periods of time.
When observing the CO2 levels in the ice cores, trends do appear to
exist, yet the percent error of such curves is very high. Unlike in
geology, where rock formations have not undergone any chemical
reactions or phases changes for centuries or millennia, calculating
equations from carbon-dating gasses has severe limitations in terms of
accuracy.
I could go into the extremely low concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere (and the even lower percentages of human emitted CO2) as well- not mention the numerous cases of IPCC, NOAA, and even NASA's climate department's data manipulation and/or fraud.
Also, I have read in particular a paper written in the early 90s by a Polish scientist (a climatologist, I believe) that made similar points to those above- though it's saved on another computer which I don't feel like booting up now. That scientist was essentially demonized by the climatology community- then again, such points in the paper did threaten the gravy train of grant money.
empty vessel
Member
Something Wicked said:
Is that anything like the reason lawyers fight for jobs at non-profit, public interest law organizations instead of for jobs at big law firms that serve corporate clients? To get in on the "gravy train of grant money"?
Get real.
speculawyer
Member
Hitokage said:
Yep. The subject line is the clever Cobert way of putting it.
But things like evolution, climate change . . . a lot of science actually. If it doesn't fit their agenda then they just refuse to believe reality.
speculawyer
Member
Something Wicked said:
Yep . . . reality has a liberal bias.
- Status