You could practically see his thoughts during the last debate, at what point could he push into the other candidates yelling at each other without participating in their stupidity and how could he stick to any kind of coherent narrative? I don't feel sorry for him exactly but I don't envy him one bit.
You can't use evidence to get people out of a position they didn't use evidence to get themselves into.
This is a good rule of thumb, I like it
No it's not.
In science, this would be the basis for a hypothesis, and then evidence is exactly how you get people out of it.
The difference being, a full hypothesis makes testable predictions. But you can't get to that without first making some sort of loose conjecture.
You can't use evidence to get people out of a position they didn't use evidence to get themselves into.
This is a good rule of thumb, I like it
No it's not.
In science, this would be the basis for a hypothesis, and then evidence is exactly how you get people out of it.
The difference being, a full hypothesis makes testable predictions. But you can't get to that without first making some sort of loose conjecture.
You can't use evidence to get people out of a position they didn't use evidence to get themselves into.
This is a good rule of thumb, I like it
No it's not.
In science, this would be the basis for a hypothesis, and then evidence is exactly how you get people out of it.
The difference being, a full hypothesis makes testable predictions. But you can't get to that without first making some sort of loose conjecture.
Do you know what rule of thumb means
The Rule of Thumb is best known, historically, for his bloodthirsty and merciless punishments. Thumb ruled with an iron fist.
You can't use evidence to get people out of a position they didn't use evidence to get themselves into.
This is a good rule of thumb, I like it
No it's not.
In science, this would be the basis for a hypothesis, and then evidence is exactly how you get people out of it.
The difference being, a full hypothesis makes testable predictions. But you can't get to that without first making some sort of loose conjecture.
Do you know what rule of thumb means
That's the one where you use your thumb to measure the distance from an atomic blast, right? Like this guy:
To be fair to Hillary, that's a 30 second clip from a much longer conversation that could very easily be taken out of context.
I think this quote from that same conversation goes a long way towards explaining Hillary's attitude towards BLM, without painting her in an unfair light.
"Look, I don't believe you change hearts," Clinton said, arguing that the movement can't change deep seated racism. "I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You're not going to change every heart. You're not. But at the end of the day, we could do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them, to live up to their own God-given potential."
Also Hillary ain't exactly wrong. Laws often pave the way for social progress, it's rarely the other way around.
There's also the matter that laws ensure gains made today are permanent and not undone by a populist and prejudice legislature down the line. If Roe and Brown had not been backed up by courts and the law.....
Having only just gotten into It's Always Sunny that show began really ahead of its time
+4
Options
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
edited February 2016
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders launched a petition Sunday pushing back on a recent decision by the Democratic National Committee to reverse a ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists. The move ratchets up tensions between the DNC and the U.S. senator from Vermont, who commonly is viewed as an anti-establishment candidate.
Restrictions on lobbyists’ donations to campaigns were introduced eight years ago by Barack Obama, then a senator and candidate for the U.S. presidency. The DNC has been quietly rolling back the restrictions for months, although revelations about the full extent of its moves emerged only Friday.
“The DNC’s recent change in guidelines will ensure that we continue to have the resources and infrastructure in place to best support whoever emerges as our eventual nominee,” Mark Paustenbach, the committee’s deputy communications director, told the Washington Post in an email. “Electing a Democrat to the White House is vital to building on the progress we’ve made over the last seven years.”
In its petition, the Sanders campaign called the move “an unfortunate step backward,” lamenting the return of yet another stream of “big money” into politics. It lauded Obama’s decision eight years ago to ban contributions from special-interest political action committees, or PACs, and from lobbyists, calling it a “noble step.”
That description came on the heels of accusations during a debate Thursday by Sanders’ opponent in seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that the senator had previously labeled Obama “weak” and a “disappointment” — criticisms she indicated she would expect from a Republican, not from a Democrat.
During the debate Thursday, Sanders targeted Clinton’s super PAC, saying it had received $15 million of its $25 million in contributions from Wall Street sources. In contrast, he said, “Our average contribution is $27.” Clinton responded by arguing that Sanders was “mixing apples and oranges” and that it was, in fact, possible to take donations from Wall Street and remain independent, pointing to Obama and his support of tougher regulations on big banks as proof of the concept.
After news broke of the DNC’s policy reversal, the Sanders campaign urged Clinton to criticize the committee’s change in direction. “We support the restrictions that President Obama put in place, and we hope Secretary Clinton will join us in supporting the president,” campaign representative Michael Briggs said. However, Clinton appears to have remained silent on the issue.
In an email to supporters Sunday, Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, pointed out the Democrats won the White House in 2008 and 2012 even with the ban on funding by lobbyists. “If we are to restore a vibrant democracy in this country, it is long past time to break the link between money and special-interest favors in politics,” he said.
As of Jan. 31, Clinton had raised more than $48 million in campaign contributions from outside groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As of the same date, Sanders had raised $31,911 from outside groups, the center reported. Expunging big money from politics has been one of the pillars of Sanders’ platform.
Sanders’ campaign previously accused the DNC of sabotage and of favoring the establishment candidate, Clinton. In December, the committee cut off the Sanders campaign’s access to a voter database, after one of its staffers tapped into voter information belonging to the Clinton campaign without authorization. The committee restored access only after the campaign filed a lawsuit seeking that access, as well as damages.
At this point in the election, I don't think she needs money to change her image, she needs more debates.
She's kind of in a lose lose here. Either she goes against it, and against Obama who originally proposed this and Hillary looks like a hypocrite or she ends up voluntarily cutting off her major support. Basically Bernie Sanders is challenging her to a game of chicken that he can't lose. It's kind of a brilliant move.
It's always sunny has an episode essentially lampooning Israel and calling it out (via the proxy of an Israeli guy) over Palestine. That show is something else
"If women really are being payed less, why don't companies just hire all women and save some money."
It is a legitimate albeit cold hearted question
Of course the answer becomes obvious once you stop to consider why women are paid less
Which is that employers falsely believe their work to be of a lower quality
That's never stopped companies before
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
"If women really are being payed less, why don't companies just hire all women and save some money."
It is a legitimate albeit cold hearted question
Of course the answer becomes obvious once you stop to consider why women are paid less
Which is that employers falsely believe their work to be of a lower quality
That's never stopped companies before
It's like there's a some formula that shitty prejudiced people seem to have that you can't quite quantify where paying a man their own low wage is the standard, paying a woman a dollar less isn't worth the savings but paying exploitable foreigners a dollar for lesser work is.
You can't use evidence to get people out of a position they didn't use evidence to get themselves into.
This is a good rule of thumb, I like it
No it's not.
In science, this would be the basis for a hypothesis, and then evidence is exactly how you get people out of it.
The difference being, a full hypothesis makes testable predictions. But you can't get to that without first making some sort of loose conjecture.
Do you know what rule of thumb means
Yes.
But considering all good learning resides on the same principles as the above, either it is absolutely not a good rule of thumb, or you wish to stifle all creative thinking by not attempting to validate or disprove presuppositions.
So no. Not a good rule of thumb at all.
And in fact, that attitude probably reinforces the behaviour it wishes to ignore.
By writing off the possibility of rational debate, you prevent the idea from meeting its opposition.
Posts
Rubio sure looks like a weak candidate right now.
No it's not.
In science, this would be the basis for a hypothesis, and then evidence is exactly how you get people out of it.
The difference being, a full hypothesis makes testable predictions. But you can't get to that without first making some sort of loose conjecture.
It's based on this quote from Jonathan Swift:
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired."
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
Do you know what rule of thumb means
The Rule of Thumb is best known, historically, for his bloodthirsty and merciless punishments. Thumb ruled with an iron fist.
That's the one where you use your thumb to measure the distance from an atomic blast, right? Like this guy:
One sperm per womb.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
edit also bors is a dingus
seriously, fuck every single person that says something like that
if you're seriously going to degrade young college voters and think so little of young adults that this is what you think we think about?
go fuck yourself
To be fair to Hillary, that's a 30 second clip from a much longer conversation that could very easily be taken out of context.
I think this quote from that same conversation goes a long way towards explaining Hillary's attitude towards BLM, without painting her in an unfair light.
Here's the full CNN article with quotes from the Black Lives Matter activists.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Nah, YouTube
Cause if I don't then the dang phone is asking if I want to open it in the app and it's like not particularly I'm just looking for a quick clip
There's also the matter that laws ensure gains made today are permanent and not undone by a populist and prejudice legislature down the line. If Roe and Brown had not been backed up by courts and the law.....
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
*sunglasses*
Feel the Bern
Are you trying to imply that I and my fellow bretherbern have STDS?
Because It's Always Sunny touched on this eleven years ago!
that show has done some rather biting commentary on things like health care
At this point in the election, I don't think she needs money to change her image, she needs more debates.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
She's kind of in a lose lose here. Either she goes against it, and against Obama who originally proposed this and Hillary looks like a hypocrite or she ends up voluntarily cutting off her major support. Basically Bernie Sanders is challenging her to a game of chicken that he can't lose. It's kind of a brilliant move.
"If women really are being payed less, why don't companies just hire all women and save some money."
Of course the answer becomes obvious once you stop to consider why women are paid less
Which is that employers falsely believe their work to be of a lower quality
http://www.audioentropy.com/
That's never stopped companies before
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's like there's a some formula that shitty prejudiced people seem to have that you can't quite quantify where paying a man their own low wage is the standard, paying a woman a dollar less isn't worth the savings but paying exploitable foreigners a dollar for lesser work is.
Yes.
But considering all good learning resides on the same principles as the above, either it is absolutely not a good rule of thumb, or you wish to stifle all creative thinking by not attempting to validate or disprove presuppositions.
So no. Not a good rule of thumb at all.
And in fact, that attitude probably reinforces the behaviour it wishes to ignore.
By writing off the possibility of rational debate, you prevent the idea from meeting its opposition.
I mean, really, if the ruler of the free world wanted someone dead and it ruled natural causes i don't think he'd have a hard time.