The theory that life initially began in some sort of tidal pool is pretty flimsy and isn't significantly more likely than some of the other theories evolutionists have come up with. In fact it hasn't developed much beyond "well, we're pretty sure it's not impossible, so we think it might have happened." Have you anything better than conjuncture?
It's certainly not enough to warrant claiming that "we observe the moon in its unlikely state because that was the most conducive to our own evolution".
I'm going to guess either your persecution complex is particularly strong or you don't have a clue what a tidal force is.
"Law as deterrence" is one of the foundations of law - what do you think there is about drugs that makes you think that that foundation does not apply there? Do you think that something being illegal in general does not deter it, or that drugs are special?
What's special, but far from unique, about drugs is that they have an extremely high demand, and an unstoppable supply. There is also the fact that the government has no right whatsoever to make any laws at all about people's choices to use them. The only way it's gotten away with it is by a grotesque misuse of the interstate commerce clause. So when you have something which there is no justification whatsoever for making illegal, then people aren't going to respect that law. They are going to gain contempt for that law and the law in general. So while, it's possible there are a few people here and there who don't do drugs because they are illegal, they are rare. Those people will then use legal drugs, which is at best breaking even and most likely a net negative since legal drugs are, in general, worse than illegal drugs. So again, no benefit and a net loss for society and individuals.
It isn't the purpose of laws to deter people from things that might harm them. Government has no legitimate business doing anything of the sort. That can only lead to totalitarianism. Education can help ameliorate the problem, but when you make it illegal, you also necessarily prevent decent educational programs because then all you get is propaganda. Just look at current anti drug programs. Bullshit and lies, and people figure that out eventually and assume it's all bullshit when there are actual dangers of drug use. Again, it's a case where the cure is far worse than the problem would have been alone in the first place.
I believe it needs considerable readjustment to eliminate the expenditures on fighting drugs that are not (or are negligibly) harmful (like pot), both in the name of better respecting a default of autonomy and because that money and effort is better spent elsewhere, but it is not a worthless system even as it is now.
It's not worthless, it's actively harmful. That's much much worse than worthless. That's why I consider it evil, loaded term though it is. That's the fact that you continually fail to address. By any metric you would care to name it is absolutely far worse than doing nothing at all.
Worth it? By my standards, no, but there were benefits.
Then it's not a benefit. It's damaging. I could "benefit" the wild plants and animals in Asia were I to exterminate every living human there. That doesn't mean that it's worthwhile or beneficial. It means I have an extremely narrow minded view and am not looking at the big picture. Similarly the scorched earth tactics of the drug war do damage far overwhelming any conceivable benefit they could possibly achieve even in theory if there were even any actual noble goals behind it which there quite obviously aren't. If there were noble goals, criminalization wouldn't have been the approach especially after prohibition proved that the obvious consequences would, in fact, inevitably happen
So with legal drugs you have the probability that some small fraction of users will get into trouble with drugs. With illegal drugs you have that as well. In addition, the illegality increases the problems people will get into absolutely. Additionally, a whole host of other problems created solely by drug laws which do not exist in their absence are created.
So against this you're putting up a hypothetical very few people who chose not to do drugs due to their illegality without taking into account the positive aspects of drug use, or the extremely small fraction of people you're talking about. You also ignore the fact that drug supply has only gone up. You also ignore the massively corrupting influence of drug laws on our foreign policy, on police departments, and therefrom the rise of the prison industrial complex where the people who stand to profit by locking
I think you're wrong, and that you're being a bit hysterical by using terms like "entirely evil" and "utterly insane" and claiming that there are "no possible positive results". If your would read this entire discussion thread, you would see careful discussion of facts, motivations, and aims, basically all of it more civil and thoughtful than what you've posted here.
No, I did read the discussion, and you have not been carefully discussing facts, motivations and aims. You have been making no sense at all because you're ignoring the most important facts such as the very real demonstrated consequences of the drug war. You keep claiming that you magically believe that it's possible for it to have good affects even though it's never happened and you have yet to come up with even one single theoretical possible benefit which isn't vastly outweighed by the damage your position has already caused and continues to cause.
So when you support a position that is massively damaging and has no possible net benefit as proven by the entirety of human history, that is evil. It's cruel, causes massive amounts of violent crime, massive harm to communities, massive increase in police powers and doesn't help solve any of the problems associated with drugs. It only multiplies them and creates new ones. If you really don't know that's true, then how come you've been entirely unable throughout this entire discussion to come up with a real possible benefit that isn't far outweighed by the damage caused by your "solution"? Think about that.
Taking the same actions while expecting different results to magically appear? That is insane. It is what you're doing. We tried your way with prohibition and it led to massive increases in violent crime, increased usage, more dangerous substances, massively increased powers and no positive results whatsoever. Now look at the drug war. Exact same results. Your solution is to merely believe that somehow it's possible that positive results will magically appear if we keep up the same stupid actions? How is that not insane?
If you want to have a discussion over the matter, you can and should do better in both understanding everything I've said and replying in ways that are meaningful. I'm still willing to have that discussion.
I do understand everything you've said. The fact is that you are wrong. History proves you to be wrong. The current reality proves you to be wrong. There is not one thing you've said that deals with the real demonstrated consequences of prohibition that vastly outweigh any conceivable benefit and certainly, given the fact that there have been no benefits at all so far after almost 100 years, outweigh the lack of any benefits we've seen.
So if you're willing to have the discussion, that's the elephant in the room you've been dancing around. The demonstrated reality that prohibition hasn't helped at all in any way to reduce the problems inherent in drug abuse and, in fact, act as an amplifier of all of those problems by taking a social/medical problem and turning them into legal problems. Additionally, they create a while host of problems far worse than the worst case scenarios of drug abuse itself.
"Believing" that somehow magically prohibition can have good affects isn't an argument, it's a statement of faith. Given the demonstrated falsehood of your faith in action, it's not a position that's defensible. That's why you've been unable to come up with any arguments for your position that aren't already invalidated by history and the current reality.
I'd rather, so much as it is possible, close down the markets as much as possible for those drugs that cannot be used responsibly, and I believe that prohibition of these drugs can at least partly work -
Well, the problem is that you are absolutely positively and completely wrong. It's been proven over and over again. All it does is increase violent crime, increase the damage inherent in abuse, drive up costs of enforcement far above any possible costs of abuse, and lead to severe encroachment on liberties unrelated to the whole drug issue. This is not speculation, it's the world we live in and it's proven to work out that way *every time it's ever been attempted throughout history*.
So the fact that you believe such an utterly insane thing doesn't mean you have a valid position, it means that you are entirely delusional about the issue.
If a drug is addictive enough that people will rob or murder to get it, it doesn't matter so much what kind of source they get it from (although these criminal gangs are certainly, as you note, a significant problem).
But again, basic reality is apparently beyond your comprehension. The criminal gangs aren't the result of drugs. They are entirely the result of drug laws. The significant problem as you describe it is *created* by people holding your position. People would have no need to rob or murder to attain legal drugs. They only need to do that because of *your attitude* and the fact that it's shared by a large number of idiots and a small number of smart, evil people who enjoy profiting off of the problems you are helping to create and maintain.
Please try and actually think clearly about the issue and not just spout half baked nonsense that obviously fails to consider the consequences of your position except by trying to blame other people for the problems you are helping cause.
Your position is entirely evil, has been proven to have no possible positive results, and has caused and continues to cause massive damage to our society, people's health and lives and to our civil liberties. Please for the love of anything holy take some responsibility for yourself. Don't just whine to mommy government that you don't like what other people do and that you'll be happy to see the whole place burned to the ground to prevent other people from doing something you dislike. That is your attitude. You couldn't possibly hold your position otherwise because every single piece of evidence without one single exception proves your position to be far more harmful that anything and everything it's supposedly designed to prevent. It's hard to imagine anybody could be so out of touch with reality as not to recognize that.
Like the article says, in case of marijuana the damage done by prohibition is worse than the damage done by the drug, but I don't think that can realistically be claimed about ALL drugs.
Actually it absolutely can be said, and it's really obvious too. If legal, you have the problems associated with drugs. If illegal you have the same problems associated with drugs. Additionally you have the problems associated with enforcement itself *plus* the increased drug associated problems caused by their illegality.
There is no possible way for prohibition to do any thing but increase the problems.
Reminds me of people who refuse doctors because "God will provide" ignoring the fact that "God provided" the doctors who want to help them. Not only is their thinking magical, but it's inconsistent, negative, and needlessly confrontational.
Wow, so close but such an utter failure in rational thinking. Once you assume anything as insane as "god", you have to realize that he created the diseases in order to watch humans suffer for his amusement. Now maybe he gets a laugh out of doctors working to correct his evil decisions, but you're an entirely delusional nitwit when you pretend that doctors are god's plan to help when he could have much more easily helped by not creating the fucking diseases in the first place.
I mean, it's a common problem, but damn if that doesn't illustrate the idiocy of god believers. Give him credit for everything good but fail to hold him accountable for his atrocities? Stupid, stupid, stupid,
RSA security is dependent on the difficulty of factoring large primes, and this seems like it would reduce the time required to solve the problem considerably.
Factoring primes is the easiest freaking thing in the world. Give me a prime, any prime. Ok, its factors are it and 1.
Perhaps someone more versed in mathematics can shed some light on this.
Please, explain to all of we poor physicists how bananas can point us to truth.
Well, it should be pretty clear that just due to their shape bananas are pretty good for pointing at things with.
Alternatively, maybe you meet somebody who knows the truth about whatever it is you're curious about. Offering them a nice banana would probably make them more inclined to tell you than other wise.
It's true that the our understanding of physics is tied to the math, but for the math to accurately imply the existence of new phenomena which haven't previously been conceived of speaks more to the fact that the "real" physics obeys the same rules of math that have been observed.
I'm not sure, but you might be falling into a similar trap as those who believe in the efficacy of prayer or psychic phenomena, where they see one coincidental connection and ignore the millions of times nothing happens.
Some math was invented for practical purposes, physics, accounting or the like. Some math was invented for a mathematician's own amusement and later turned out to be useful in some practical area. Quite a lot of mathematics was invented for a mathematician's amusement, hasn't turned up any "useful" purpose and might well never do so.
So while, complex numbers are great, and they have turned out useful in physics and engineering, that doesn't mean that therefore tachyons have to exist. It would be neat if they did, and a complex mass would be pretty bizarre, but it's not as tightly coupled as I think you're saying.
Mathematics is absolutely true within the universe created by the particular axioms you're looking at, so in the special case of some given physical phenomenon you're applying it to, of course it will have to hold true there as well, but that doesn't imply that all mathematical properties/structures/phenomena have corresponding real world entities.
The South would be solidified as a GOP stronghold, not by race, but by Reagan, who was both morally and fiscally conservative. (Goldwater was actually morally liberal)
Wow.
The fiscally conservative Goldwater was resoundingly defeated by the fascist Reagan. You know, Reagan, the guy who beat FDRs record for the growth of the government? Reagan was not conservative in any way shape or form. He was a record big spender, and socially he was a religious radical.
That's what "conservative" means now, but please do not piss all over the memory of Barry Goldwater who was actually a decent guy with a respect for this country by comparing him to that piece of shit Reagan. It's truly disgusting.
I can't think any musicians that I listen to who provoke such horrible things.
Guessing you're not a Skrewdriver fan then;-)
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
About like C.S. Lewis kept the preaching out of Narnia.
I didn't realize that there was any sort of Christian undertones to the Narnia books until a decade or so after I read them. Sure, I felt like an idiot when I did realize it later, but I think just because his fairy tale was based on the Christian fairy tale doesn't necessarily make it preaching. I wasn't raised in a religious environment, so those ideas weren't at the top of my head, so I totally missed them while still enjoying the stories.
If he was more preachy, I don't think I would have missed them.
you aren't the first person to ever call Roger Penrose a physician, but I think he probably deserves more credit than that. maybe I'm just an optimist.
Just curious, did you feel it happening but it was too crowded to tell who did it, or was he that good that you didn't even notice it until you went for your wallet later?
I'm re-re-re-rereading Thomas Covenant at the moment, and I can relate to being able to "see" health and likewise ill health.
I'm reading the second book in the third trilogy right now. The health sense is broken now. (Don't worry, that's in the first few pages of the first book).
The fallacy of your argument is most clearly revealed here. Despite all the vitriol and extreme partisanship you can muster, their results speak louder than your words. They balanced the budget, a feat the Democrats haven't accomplished in my lifetime.
Which was largely due to Clinton. So, again, it wasn't "the Republicans" that did that in isolation. So, that right there is also an example of the Democrats doing it invalidating your argument.
You should also look up the word "partisan" as it does not describe me at all. I typically vote Libertarian and dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans. Republican policies have proven far more harmful though given the police state laws we now have in this country, the eternal war for the benefit of primarily arms contractors, and the massive debt that we have due to the Republican religious mantra of "deficits don't matter".
The Democrats are spineless jellyfish, and go along with most of the crap the Republicans push, but it is the Republicans driving the train.
I fully expect to have to explain to my kids that Bangladesh was where their grandparents were from but that it no long exists (above the ocean, anyway).
On the plus side, you could combine a visit to the ancestral homeland with SCUBA lessons;-)
No. It puts EVERYONE in the same class. And if a gay couple wants to be 'married' then all they have to do is find a church or other group willing to marry them. Or they can start their own gay group and then get married within THAT. The state has no say or interest in the matter. It doesn't define 'married' or confer any rights or priviledges to 'married' people, any more than it does 'best friends'.
So rather than just keeping the current system and just keep the loons out of it, you propose creating a new system that does the same thing as the old one adding new benefits and only adding new costs for the transition?
I'm not really clear what benefit you see in that. It adds nothing worthwhile or useful and just adds the overhead of a transition that amounts to just reprinting all the forms and renaming the relevant departments.
Slashdot Mirror
The theory that life initially began in some sort of tidal pool is pretty flimsy and isn't significantly more likely than some of the other theories evolutionists have come up with. In fact it hasn't developed much beyond "well, we're pretty sure it's not impossible, so we think it might have happened." Have you anything better than conjuncture?
It's certainly not enough to warrant claiming that "we observe the moon in its unlikely state because that was the most conducive to our own evolution".
I'm going to guess either your persecution complex is particularly strong or you don't have a clue what a tidal force is.
"Law as deterrence" is one of the foundations of law - what do you think there is about drugs that makes you think that that foundation does not apply there? Do you think that something being illegal in general does not deter it, or that drugs are special?
What's special, but far from unique, about drugs is that they have an extremely high demand, and an unstoppable supply. There is also the fact that the government has no right whatsoever to make any laws at all about people's choices to use them. The only way it's gotten away with it is by a grotesque misuse of the interstate commerce clause. So when you have something which there is no justification whatsoever for making illegal, then people aren't going to respect that law. They are going to gain contempt for that law and the law in general. So while, it's possible there are a few people here and there who don't do drugs because they are illegal, they are rare. Those people will then use legal drugs, which is at best breaking even and most likely a net negative since legal drugs are, in general, worse than illegal drugs. So again, no benefit and a net loss for society and individuals.
It isn't the purpose of laws to deter people from things that might harm them. Government has no legitimate business doing anything of the sort. That can only lead to totalitarianism.
Education can help ameliorate the problem, but when you make it illegal, you also necessarily prevent decent educational programs because then all you get is propaganda. Just look at current anti drug programs. Bullshit and lies, and people figure that out eventually and assume it's all bullshit when there are actual dangers of drug use. Again, it's a case where the cure is far worse than the problem would have been alone in the first place.
I believe it needs considerable readjustment to eliminate the expenditures on fighting drugs that are not (or are negligibly) harmful (like pot), both in the name of better respecting a default of autonomy and because that money and effort is better spent elsewhere, but it is not a worthless system even as it is now.
It's not worthless, it's actively harmful. That's much much worse than worthless. That's why I consider it evil, loaded term though it is. That's the fact that you continually fail to address. By any metric you would care to name it is absolutely far worse than doing nothing at all.
Worth it? By my standards, no, but there were benefits.
Then it's not a benefit. It's damaging. I could "benefit" the wild plants and animals in Asia were I to exterminate every living human there. That doesn't mean that it's worthwhile or beneficial. It means I have an extremely narrow minded view and am not looking at the big picture. Similarly the scorched earth tactics of the drug war do damage far overwhelming any conceivable benefit they could possibly achieve even in theory if there were even any actual noble goals behind it which there quite obviously aren't. If there were noble goals, criminalization wouldn't have been the approach especially after prohibition proved that the obvious consequences would, in fact, inevitably happen
So with legal drugs you have the probability that some small fraction of users will get into trouble with drugs.
With illegal drugs you have that as well. In addition, the illegality increases the problems people will get into absolutely. Additionally, a whole host of other problems created solely by drug laws which do not exist in their absence are created.
So against this you're putting up a hypothetical very few people who chose not to do drugs due to their illegality without taking into account the positive aspects of drug use, or the extremely small fraction of people you're talking about. You also ignore the fact that drug supply has only gone up.
You also ignore the massively corrupting influence of drug laws on our foreign policy, on police departments, and therefrom the rise of the prison industrial complex where the people who stand to profit by locking
I think you're wrong, and that you're being a bit hysterical by using terms like "entirely evil" and "utterly insane" and claiming that there are "no possible positive results". If your would read this entire discussion thread, you would see careful discussion of facts, motivations, and aims, basically all of it more civil and thoughtful than what you've posted here.
No, I did read the discussion, and you have not been carefully discussing facts, motivations and aims. You have been making no sense at all because you're ignoring the most important facts such as the very real demonstrated consequences of the drug war. You keep claiming that you magically believe that it's possible for it to have good affects even though it's never happened and you have yet to come up with even one single theoretical possible benefit which isn't vastly outweighed by the damage your position has already caused and continues to cause.
So when you support a position that is massively damaging and has no possible net benefit as proven by the entirety of human history, that is evil. It's cruel, causes massive amounts of violent crime, massive harm to communities, massive increase in police powers and doesn't help solve any of the problems associated with drugs. It only multiplies them and creates new ones. If you really don't know that's true, then how come you've been entirely unable throughout this entire discussion to come up with a real possible benefit that isn't far outweighed by the damage caused by your "solution"? Think about that.
Taking the same actions while expecting different results to magically appear? That is insane. It is what you're doing. We tried your way with prohibition and it led to massive increases in violent crime, increased usage, more dangerous substances, massively increased powers and no positive results whatsoever.
Now look at the drug war. Exact same results. Your solution is to merely believe that somehow it's possible that positive results will magically appear if we keep up the same stupid actions? How is that not insane?
If you want to have a discussion over the matter, you can and should do better in both understanding everything I've said and replying in ways that are meaningful. I'm still willing to have that discussion.
I do understand everything you've said. The fact is that you are wrong. History proves you to be wrong. The current reality proves you to be wrong.
There is not one thing you've said that deals with the real demonstrated consequences of prohibition that vastly outweigh any conceivable benefit and certainly, given the fact that there have been no benefits at all so far after almost 100 years, outweigh the lack of any benefits we've seen.
So if you're willing to have the discussion, that's the elephant in the room you've been dancing around. The demonstrated reality that prohibition hasn't helped at all in any way to reduce the problems inherent in drug abuse and, in fact, act as an amplifier of all of those problems by taking a social/medical problem and turning them into legal problems. Additionally, they create a while host of problems far worse than the worst case scenarios of drug abuse itself.
"Believing" that somehow magically prohibition can have good affects isn't an argument, it's a statement of faith. Given the demonstrated falsehood of your faith in action, it's not a position that's defensible. That's why you've been unable to come up with any arguments for your position that aren't already invalidated by history and the current reality.
I'd rather, so much as it is possible, close down the markets as much as possible for those drugs that cannot be used responsibly, and I believe that prohibition of these drugs can at least partly work -
Well, the problem is that you are absolutely positively and completely wrong. It's been proven over and over again. All it does is increase violent crime, increase the damage inherent in abuse, drive up costs of enforcement far above any possible costs of abuse, and lead to severe encroachment on liberties unrelated to the whole drug issue.
This is not speculation, it's the world we live in and it's proven to work out that way *every time it's ever been attempted throughout history*.
So the fact that you believe such an utterly insane thing doesn't mean you have a valid position, it means that you are entirely delusional about the issue.
If a drug is addictive enough that people will rob or murder to get it, it doesn't matter so much what kind of source they get it from (although these criminal gangs are certainly, as you note, a significant problem).
But again, basic reality is apparently beyond your comprehension. The criminal gangs aren't the result of drugs. They are entirely the result of drug laws. The significant problem as you describe it is *created* by people holding your position. People would have no need to rob or murder to attain legal drugs. They only need to do that because of *your attitude* and the fact that it's shared by a large number of idiots and a small number of smart, evil people who enjoy profiting off of the problems you are helping to create and maintain.
Please try and actually think clearly about the issue and not just spout half baked nonsense that obviously fails to consider the consequences of your position except by trying to blame other people for the problems you are helping cause.
Your position is entirely evil, has been proven to have no possible positive results, and has caused and continues to cause massive damage to our society, people's health and lives and to our civil liberties. Please for the love of anything holy take some responsibility for yourself. Don't just whine to mommy government that you don't like what other people do and that you'll be happy to see the whole place burned to the ground to prevent other people from doing something you dislike. That is your attitude. You couldn't possibly hold your position otherwise because every single piece of evidence without one single exception proves your position to be far more harmful that anything and everything it's supposedly designed to prevent. It's hard to imagine anybody could be so out of touch with reality as not to recognize that.
Like the article says, in case of marijuana the damage done by prohibition is worse than the damage done by the drug, but I don't think that can realistically be claimed about ALL drugs.
Actually it absolutely can be said, and it's really obvious too. If legal, you have the problems associated with drugs. If illegal you have the same problems associated with drugs. Additionally you have the problems associated with enforcement itself *plus* the increased drug associated problems caused by their illegality.
There is no possible way for prohibition to do any thing but increase the problems.
love & kisses, your friendly college sysadmin
Luckily, my college sysadmin is named HappyNoonFlowerHanderOuter, so I'm not worried ;-)
Reminds me of people who refuse doctors because "God will provide" ignoring the fact that "God provided" the doctors who want to help them. Not only is their thinking magical, but it's inconsistent, negative, and needlessly confrontational.
Wow, so close but such an utter failure in rational thinking.
Once you assume anything as insane as "god", you have to realize that he created the diseases in order to watch humans suffer for his amusement. Now maybe he gets a laugh out of doctors working to correct his evil decisions, but you're an entirely delusional nitwit when you pretend that doctors are god's plan to help when he could have much more easily helped by not creating the fucking diseases in the first place.
I mean, it's a common problem, but damn if that doesn't illustrate the idiocy of god believers. Give him credit for everything good but fail to hold him accountable for his atrocities? Stupid, stupid, stupid,
RSA security is dependent on the difficulty of factoring large primes, and this seems like it would reduce the time required to solve the problem considerably.
Factoring primes is the easiest freaking thing in the world.
Give me a prime, any prime. Ok, its factors are it and 1.
Perhaps someone more versed in mathematics can shed some light on this.
HTH HAND.
As for expansion, well, let's just hope there's a similar speedup to be found in linear programming :)
Simplex method forever, Baby!
When legal, the drugs become a lot cheaper. Also when legal, drug use is less of a barrier to employment. It's really pretty simple.
Additionally the costs of the drug war go away and they far outstrip the worst case costs of drug abuse.
Please, explain to all of we poor physicists how bananas can point us to truth.
Well, it should be pretty clear that just due to their shape bananas are pretty good for pointing at things with.
Alternatively, maybe you meet somebody who knows the truth about whatever it is you're curious about. Offering them a nice banana would probably make them more inclined to tell you than other wise.
It's true that the our understanding of physics is tied to the math, but for the math to accurately imply the existence of new phenomena which haven't previously been conceived of speaks more to the fact that the "real" physics obeys the same rules of math that have been observed.
I'm not sure, but you might be falling into a similar trap as those who believe in the efficacy of prayer or psychic phenomena, where they see one coincidental connection and ignore the millions of times nothing happens.
Some math was invented for practical purposes, physics, accounting or the like. Some math was invented for a mathematician's own amusement and later turned out to be useful in some practical area. Quite a lot of mathematics was invented for a mathematician's amusement, hasn't turned up any "useful" purpose and might well never do so.
So while, complex numbers are great, and they have turned out useful in physics and engineering, that doesn't mean that therefore tachyons have to exist. It would be neat if they did, and a complex mass would be pretty bizarre, but it's not as tightly coupled as I think you're saying.
Mathematics is absolutely true within the universe created by the particular axioms you're looking at, so in the special case of some given physical phenomenon you're applying it to, of course it will have to hold true there as well, but that doesn't imply that all mathematical properties/structures/phenomena have corresponding real world entities.
I just want someone to show me if we're going to burn the witch, do we have more reasonable proof than if she weighs the same as a duck?
Well, she has got a wart.
he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment.
Given that Alaska is the queen of the welfare states, it means he's the biggest fucking leech?
That isn't a recommendation you made, its a condemnation. At least to those of us who actually have to pay your bills for you thanks to that douche.
The South would be solidified as a GOP stronghold, not by race, but by Reagan, who was both morally and fiscally conservative. (Goldwater was actually morally liberal)
Wow.
The fiscally conservative Goldwater was resoundingly defeated by the fascist Reagan. You know, Reagan, the guy who beat FDRs record for the growth of the government? Reagan was not conservative in any way shape or form. He was a record big spender, and socially he was a religious radical.
That's what "conservative" means now, but please do not piss all over the memory of Barry Goldwater who was actually a decent guy with a respect for this country by comparing him to that piece of shit Reagan. It's truly disgusting.
I can't think any musicians that I listen to who provoke such horrible things.
Guessing you're not a Skrewdriver fan then ;-)
About like C.S. Lewis kept the preaching out of Narnia.
I didn't realize that there was any sort of Christian undertones to the Narnia books until a decade or so after I read them. Sure, I felt like an idiot when I did realize it later, but I think just because his fairy tale was based on the Christian fairy tale doesn't necessarily make it preaching. I wasn't raised in a religious environment, so those ideas weren't at the top of my head, so I totally missed them while still enjoying the stories.
If he was more preachy, I don't think I would have missed them.
you aren't the first person to ever call Roger Penrose a physician, but I think he probably deserves more credit than that. maybe I'm just an optimist.
I think you meant maybe you're just an optician.
One time my wallet was stolen by a pickpocket.
Just curious, did you feel it happening but it was too crowded to tell who did it, or was he that good that you didn't even notice it until you went for your wallet later?
I'm re-re-re-rereading Thomas Covenant at the moment, and I can relate to being able to "see" health and likewise ill health.
I'm reading the second book in the third trilogy right now. The health sense is broken now. (Don't worry, that's in the first few pages of the first book).
Well. The real question is, do we have anything to gain by requiring all politicians to take a space flight prior to taking office?
Yes, provided that the trip is on the B Ark.
The fallacy of your argument is most clearly revealed here. Despite all the vitriol and extreme partisanship you can muster, their results speak louder than your words. They balanced the budget, a feat the Democrats haven't accomplished in my lifetime.
Which was largely due to Clinton. So, again, it wasn't "the Republicans" that did that in isolation. So, that right there is also an example of the Democrats doing it invalidating your argument.
You should also look up the word "partisan" as it does not describe me at all. I typically vote Libertarian and dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans. Republican policies have proven far more harmful though given the police state laws we now have in this country, the eternal war for the benefit of primarily arms contractors, and the massive debt that we have due to the Republican religious mantra of "deficits don't matter".
The Democrats are spineless jellyfish, and go along with most of the crap the Republicans push, but it is the Republicans driving the train.
Incidentally, how long before a Londoner of Bangladeshi background is no longer Bangladeshi and is just a Londoner? Three generations? Four?
If you can eat a pork pie slathered in marmite without puking, you pass the test.
I fully expect to have to explain to my kids that Bangladesh was where their grandparents were from but that it no long exists (above the ocean, anyway).
On the plus side, you could combine a visit to the ancestral homeland with SCUBA lessons ;-)
No. It puts EVERYONE in the same class. And if a gay couple wants to be 'married' then all they have to do is find a church or other group willing to marry them. Or they can start their own gay group and then get married within THAT. The state has no say or interest in the matter. It doesn't define 'married' or confer any rights or priviledges to 'married' people, any more than it does 'best friends'.
So rather than just keeping the current system and just keep the loons out of it, you propose creating a new system that does the same thing as the old one adding new benefits and only adding new costs for the transition?
I'm not really clear what benefit you see in that. It adds nothing worthwhile or useful and just adds the overhead of a transition that amounts to just reprinting all the forms and renaming the relevant departments.
Zero benefit, positive cost. Net loss.