iterative

That's not an argument, it's an assertion.

Good luck trying to convince people. I think that Malthusianism just makes sense to people instinctively, and that counts for much more than the fact that it's been proven incorrect over and over again. Even though doom and gloom about things like "overpopulation" have been debunked time and again by people like Julian Simon ("The Ultimate Resource") you'll never convince people who've bought into it to change their minds.

Haha, good troll. Pretending that Anti-GMO != Anti-science.

"Many have argued that capitalism does not offer a satisfactory moral message. But that is like saying that calculus does not contain cabrohydrates, amino acids, or other essential nutrients. Everything fails by irrevelant standards."

-- Thomas Sowell

The problem isn't with the American way of hiring, it's with the American way of voting.

Orwell summed up this philosophy in only three words: Freedom is Slavery.

Under that reasoning genocide of a minority is just fine as long as it's supported by a majority.

Right, because you saw it in a movie, so it must be true.

The article is a mess, but the root of the problem is that while the article presents giving “power to the people” and "dethron[ing] authoritarians" as goals of the left in principle, in practice what the left does when it comes to power is always the opposite. Leftists may talk about believing in democracy and freedom, but these principles are incompatible with the left's overarching goal, which is promoting economic equality. Since people are inherently different, the only way to guarantee economic equality is to use state power to control people. Of course, even where leftist principles are put into practice, such as in Cuba, North Korea, the Soviet Union, etc., the result still isn't economic equality, only a lack of freedom and general impoverishment of the most of the population.

I was really hoping for some viagra jokes.

I have extra kidney to sell if anyone's interested. Payment will only be accepted in Bitcoins.

If Keynes's predictive model was so good then why has every application of his theory, whether in the US in the 30's, 70's and now, Japan in the past couple of decades, etc. failed so miserably? On what basis are you claiming that Detroit's collapse was structural, rather than being caused by bad governance? Other areas of the US, and other countries for that matter, have seen their main industries decline, but they've managed to replace them with others without suffering the total disaster that Detroit as.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Insurance companies have assets the can fall back on to pay claims, they don't just pay them out of insurance payments as they come in.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social...

Red-blooded American Males: 1 Unwashed Hippies: 0

Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should read Thomas Sowell's The Quest for Cosmic Justice (http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Cosmic-Justice-Thomas-Sowell/dp/...), and everything else Sowell wrote, and Hayek and von Mises, and Friedman and all the other economists who've long since debunked this kind of idiocy . . .

I don't get the statist idea that it's any of your damn business to decide who does and doesn't "deserve" a particular amount of money. Given that free markets have lead to prosperity for average people on a scale that would've been unimaginable a few short centuries ago, while people living in socialist utopias like Cuba and North Korea continue to live in extreme poverty, those who support redistributionist schemes like this are clearly the ones who want to see poor kids rot.

San Francisco is a nice little town, but it's not in the same league as New York.

Everyone formats their code wrong except for me.

When I was applying to college they told me that not only did I have to fill out an application, write an essay and pay a fee, but I had to spend several hours taking an aptitude test, which I had to study for for several weeks beforehand. Slavery!

Proving once again he's prescient, Ali G suggested reporting on election returns the day before, during his excellent interview with Andy Rooney several years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglSPl7g14Q

Not true. A "CSS class" is where you go to be taught about CSS.

Hmmm. Why do you think it is that the costs of products and services produced by certain industries, like medical care and higher education, tend to rise much faster than inflation, while costs in other industries, like say, technology, fall over time? Could it have something to do with the fact that the industries where costs are increasing are those most heavily regulated and subsidized by multiple layers of government, while those where costs are falling (and quality is rising) are those that are least regulated and subsidized? Perish the thought! Much easier to just scream "greed!!!" and feel a bit morally superior than to actually try to understand what the problem is.

Although we haven't yet achieved the slow rate of economic growth and high rate of unemployment that Europe currently enjoys, don't worry, the current administration is working hard to get us there. And if you're too impatient to wait for the whole country to reach an acceptable level of dysfunction, you can always move to Detroit and get ahead of the curve.

You can respect someone for believing in socialism? What about witchcraft?

Obama says a lot of things.

There are numerous problems with this article, but the one that jumps out at me the most is that it doesn't seem to have occurred to the author that maybe the Soviet Union got off the fence and declared war on Japan because of the atomic bomb. If it looked like victory was going to be achieved without an invasion, why wouldn't Stalin have jumped onto the bandwagon and declared a war he knew he'd never have to fight?

Yes, because it's the absolutely the same thing. There's really no difference between $10 a month birth control pills and cancer treatment.

When the government writes thousands of pages of regulations precisely dictating what type of health insurance coverage individuals are required to purchase and how doctors are required to provide and charge for their services, then healthcare choices aren't being made by "the individual and the doctor", they're being made by a remote, unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy.

By all means, let's subsidize health care for low income people. I think there are very few people other than hardcore libertarians who don't want their to be some kind of a safety net that includes health care for those who need it but can't afford it. The point is that a national political party that chooses to make free contraception into a major electoral issue in the middle of an economic crisis is fundamentally unserious.

Let's see, so the party whose biggest contributor is the teachers' unions, who have presided over four decades of trapping poor minorities in failed urban schools where it's virtually impossible to fire a teacher no matter how incompetent they are is pro-education, and the party that supports school choice programs, which in the past ten or twenty years has allowed hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged children to escape from some of the worst schools in the country and actually learn something is anti-education? Good to know.

Um, except for two idiot Senate candidates who went down in flames, it was the Democrats who were pushing so-called "social" issues this election cycle with radical positions like forcing everyone to buy health insurance that includes contraceptives, whether they wanted to or not.

Saying the employer or the insurer is one paying for the contraceptives is economic nonsense -- the cost ultimately comes out of the employees' pockets. Should, say, a woman who's gone through menopause or a gay man really have to pay higher health insurance premiums to subsidize someone else's birth control? Given that birth control pills are legal and cheap (~$10 a month at Walgreens) this was really just about trying to create a wedge issue by scaring people with a phony controversy.

And after being in office for four years, Obama waited until about five minutes before the election, when the polls showed support was turning in its favor, to announce his very tepid support for gay marriage. Not exactly, a shining example of leading on principle.