Bernice: Maybe he's even more of a nut.

Bernice: You're right about North Korea. I'm more that the world is on alert (as we in the US always are or should be) than worry. But you probably mean worry as in "concern" and we should be concerned who takes over etc. We are only ONE nut-job away from some serious conflicts with those nations that have the big bomb (as does N Korea). That should "worry" everyone. ;)

(V): Dawkins couldn't even wear his socks.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the death of Christopher Hitchens. So I will. It's a very sad sad day. The world has lost a powerful voice. His intellect resides at the very top with the very brightest. His rhetorical skills were unmatched but by the very few. The world now has a hole in it that won't be easily filled. RIP

(V): And what of US progressives? What is your equavalent?

(V): we have more than two parties too but only two dominant parties. Which of yours dominate? And how do liberals of GB differ from liberals in US?

(V): What the difference for example with your conservatives and liberals?

(V): that's not a lot of viewers. Certainly not enough to sustain a show. On YouTube yes, cable no. You have to wonder why MSNBC keeps hiring these liberal nut jobs (Joy Bahar, Al Sharpton....) as they can't pull in any decent ratings. But if they put a good conservative at the helm, they'd easily score over a million viewers. American's are tired of the liberal spin here.

@toddstarnes
toddstarnes
Cable News Ratings - O'Reilly 3,271,000 Piers Morgan 604,000

(V): I was speaking of formal logic. But then you knew that, right?

(V): All cable news outlets have paid contributors.

(V): philosophical logic??? off in left field?

(V): Should have said two opposite views. And yes, one view presented was completely opposite as she's a well known liberal. Fox has liberals on all the time and it's PROPER to pay them as they are regulars. Some guests don't get money as they are guests being interviewed. But those offering up commentary are called contributors and they are paid. So what.

(V): Eric Bolling=1 person. I've seen that video. Did you notice that he had TWO OPPOSING views presented?

Oh yeah DP, you walked away from our last exchange with your tail between your legs. You should stay away from trying to identify logical fallacies and stop pretending to understand logic. It's clear you don't.

(V): you were talking about the muppets. Show me more than one. More than two??

last time you tried that you had egg all over your face.

(V): stop watching them. geez

(V): Well, actually it was one commentator on Fox, not Fox as a whole. So you got that point wrong anyway. And I did comment. I corrected you when you said liberals are everywhere. I said that in Hollywood, they are as in the print and tv media. At least predominately. That's true. In talk radio, conservative voices out number the liberals but the liberals are there. But commentary and news are NOT THE SAME. But you knew that, right?

(V): Never heard it in any of the churches I've attended or visited.

(V): I agree. Your post is quite meaningless. As it has NOTHING to do with the context anyway. You do have a serious attention deficit problem yes? It even shows in your writing.

Porn can make you rich and so can selling all things satanic. The occult is hugely popular. yada yada

(V):Liberals are everywhere in Hollywood and the Media. Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly
Not exclusively, but predominantly

get it now? or do you need more?

(V): Liberals are everywhere in Hollywood and the Media. Not exclusively, but predominantly

(V): Liberals are everywhere in Hollywood and the Media. Not exclusively, but predominantly

Übergeek 바둑이: I don't think we should bail out the banks. But the government created this mess and allowed the banks to take advantage stupid regulations. And clearly, there are some banks that deserve criminal prosecution.

Here's a story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57336042/prosecuting-wall-street/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

another is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57336046-10391709/behind-the-financial-crisis-a-fraud-investigator-talks/?tag=contentBody;listingLeadStories

Some politicians need to see some jail time as well. But it will never happen.

(V): Banks are not the problem. Government is. Regulations are in effect, but not followed. In some cases, the government forced bank policy to act against sound financial sense. Many banks saw only dollar signs and went along. Some got greedy. Many didn't. Credit Unions are still strong. I have all my money in a local credit union. Investing in my community. Bank greed is a symptom of a deeper problem. So your only 1/2 right on that point.

Bernice:

(V): And Europe is going broke. You can only give away so much money before you saturate the system. You know that. One look to Greece is all you need to see how badly a system can fail. You Brits aren't doing so well either. And the USA is heading that way fast.

@AynRandBot
Ayn Rand Bot
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it.

10) "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."

9) "I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible."

8) "The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."

7) "When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union -- like public housing in the United States -- look decrepit within a year or two of their construction..."

6) "There is all the difference in the world, however, between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar: first, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent -- William Graham Sumner's famous example of B and C decided what D shall do for A. The first may be wise or unwise, an effective or ineffective way to help the disadvantaged -- but it is consistent with belief in both equality of opportunity and liberty. The second seeks equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty."

5) "When the United States was formed in 1776, it took 19 people on the farm to produce enough food for 20 people. So most of the people had to spend their time and efforts on growing food. Today, it's down to 1% or 2% to produce that food. Now just consider the vast amount of supposed unemployment that was produced by that. But there wasn't really any unemployment produced. What happened was that people who had formerly been tied up working in agriculture were freed by technological developments and improvements to do something else. That enabled us to have a better standard of living and a more extensive range of products."

4) "Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."

3) "Inflation is taxation without legislation."

2) "The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly -- whether private or governmental. His most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world. The consumer is protected from being exploited by one seller by the existence of another seller from whom he can buy and who is eager to sell to him. Alternative sources of supply protect the consumer far more effectively than all the Ralph Naders of the world."

1) "(T)he supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number -- for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs -- jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume."

(V): Sure Jules. That must be it. "MY" source lies and of course, "YOUR" source is spot on.

November 28, 2011
Global Warming Bubble is Popping
James Lewis


Hoo, boy, as Mad Magazine used to say.
Remember that old Market Crash of 2008? It started very slowly when some investors got suspicious about empty mortgages (wonder why?) wrapped in layers and layers of tin foil, then told some others about their doubts, and more and more and then BANG! Markets panicked, John McCain lost, Obama won on sheer unmitigated gall and nothing more.
In math-physics this is called a "phase change, "and it doesn't just happen with water molecules locking together to make ice crystals and acres of Lake Michigan all going Crack! when the water temps drop below zero C. It also applies to avalanches, demand-and-supply markets (including political ones), and scientific "consensus" based on dubious evidence.
The 5,000 internal emails among "scientists" in the UK -- Climategate 2.0 -- are proving to be the tipping point. This story is now moving at warp speed.
In the UK the Prime Minister's office has just run up the white flag of surrender.
The BBC Organ of Propaganda is now a target of the British press, who seem to remember what news coverage is for. See here.
Excellent blow-by-blow coverage is being provided by Climate Depot.
The UK Daily Mail has actually been doing real journalism -- a disappearing commodity in Crony Socialism.
Here are today's MailOnline headlines:


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/global_warming_bubble_is_popping.html#ixzz1f0woq7sE

November 28, 2011
Another blow for warmist fraud: Canada pulling out of Kyoto Protocols
Thomas Lifson


Canada is reported to be planning tom announce it is leaving the Kyoto Protocols, intended to reduce CO2 emissions in the hope of halting global warming, which hasn't occurred in the last decade, according to theories which lack actual scientific proof. The private Canadian CTV television network reports:
Canada will announce next month that it will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, CTV News has learned.
The Harper government has tentatively planned an announcement for a few days before Christmas, CTV's Roger Smith reported Sunday evening.
The developments come as Environment Minister Peter Kent prepares for a climate conference in Durban, South Africa that opens on Monday, with delegates from 190 countries seeking a new international agreement for cutting emissions.
Issues on the agenda include extending the Kyoto emission targets, a move being championed by Christiana Figueres, head of the UN climate secretariat.
Kent said in the House of Commons on Nov. 22 he won't sign a document at the Durban conference that extends the Kyoto targets.
"Canada goes to Durban with a number of countries sharing the same objective, and that is to put Kyoto behind us," Kent said
The global warming emperor has no clothes, and now a member of the G-8 is going to be saying so, if this report is correct.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/another_blow_for_warmist_fraud_canada_pulling_out_of_kyoto_protocols.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz1f0s4ICtL

gogul:

gogul: Go Scotland!!!

gogul:

(V): Well the point is that the BBC engaged in a cover up and altered the truth. They lied.

(V): Well now you can say you heard of the corrupt BBC

What do you have to say to critics of Fox News who regard it as a tool of the right wing?

I always love questions like that, because no one ever says, "I don't like Fox News." They say, "What do you say to the critics?" In the old days, major media was outrageously liberal, but they owned all the players on the teams, they owned the ball, they owned the stadium. And when Fox News shows up to play, everyone else wants to take the ball and go home. You hear nothing but whining about Fox News because they're kicking everybody's butt. And I love that. The people who whine about Fox News are hypocrites — they say they're totally tolerant, but when they run into someone who doesn't share their assumptions, they say, "Fox News is evil, and it must be stopped."

... The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

... BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/11/27/latest-climategate-emails-bbc-cahoots-climategate-scientists#ixzz1evJylwWl

(V): Well that's good then. Case closed.

(V): Good. That was quick. A few minutes looking at a very short preview and you can come to a full conclusion. Never mind that you haven't read his book or considered his ideas in any deep way. I would have expected as much.

So that ends that@!

(V): He's a Ph.D from Purdue Univ. A smart guy. Not that that makes him right. But interesting at least. To save you time, here are some links.

https://www.facebook.com/Dr.MarvinBittinger
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Bittinger,%20Marvin

his books that are widely used....so he's no slouch

http://marvinbittinger.com/
http://thefaithequation.com/
http://www.facultylinc.com/bittinger-marvin-l/
http://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Intermediate-Algebra-Bittinger-Worktext/dp/0321613376/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

(V): I found the book. I'll look for a link ;)

(V): Just a small correction. Argues the existence of God and proves the existence are two very different things. No one can "prove" God exists IMO.