bascule

So that's how a fecund universe would be born out of a black hole? Eventually the density becomes so great that gravity becomes repulsive?

I guess a non-stop barrage of insults is fine, but expressing your opinion isn't. I've refrained from posting extensively in this forum due to the general attitudes around here, and clearly, that hasn't changed. Let's forget all of this, and I'll go back to staying out of here.

He's signed off on a program ruled unconstitutional by a federal court over 30 times. Are you saying that isn't grounds for impeachment? My belief is that our civil liberties are being sacrificed for causes which don't particularly increase safety. I also think more pressing concerns have gone by the wayside with "terror" receiving undue focus. When exactly have I "compromise(d) logic and reason"? You seem to have quite a double standard in your dealings with me. You decry me for my opinions, then come back at me with crap like:

That's because it would take me several hours to put together the case research for a proper reply. At this point, I guess I'm willing to do that, give me a day or two.

There's only two real statements being made there: The Bush Administration has a history of attempting to increase the power of the executive The Bush Administration has dramatically overstated the problems of terrorism I'd much rather defend the latter than the former. They are both generalities, yes.

I guess I'll start a thread on the history of post-9/11 terror cases in the US.

The phrase you're looking for is "red herring" I was trying to get back to the topic at hand, namely the court ruling. What is it you'd like me to address?

How exactly are those statements based off "whopping generalities"? Let's try this again: - Bush created this program, and reauthorized it over 30 times. - A federal judge has ruled the program illegal and unconstitutional. Those aren't "whopping generalities". Those are the facts.

My favorite time travel idea so far is one where you have a wormhole and cause relativistic dilation effects on one mouth but not the other. This way, you can travel back to the time one wormhole mouth is in, and in effect get back to the past.

I'd view it as a study of information evolution as an emergent effect of the collective action of cognitive systems. Until we have a scientific description of how those cognitive systems function, we can't begin to engage in a scientific study of memes (as you can probably tell, I'm an internalist). Externalism just doesn't work. Memes are information replicators within cognitive systems. We have to understand how those systems work first. Otherwise memetics is like trying to understand genetics without first having knowledge of chemistry. I think radical fundamentalist religion, particularly Islamicism, is an excellent example of this. Suicide bombers who die in a glorious attack do an excellent job of replicating the fundamental units of information which underlie their radical religious furor, even though the cognitive system itself died in the process. You have it here folks: the final nail has been hammered into the coffin of selfish gene theory. But that aside: I don't think all memes are selfish either. So what's your point? So what sort of label would you put on James Burke's connection-oriented historicism and the way in which ideas replicate between individuals who improve them over time through a combination of stochastic processes and directed action?

People cry for Bin Laden's blood. He was behind 9/11, right? Well the real mastermind of 9/11 has been in US custody since March 2003, before the Iraq war. His name is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Hijacking jetliners and flying them into the World Trade Center was his idea. He pitched it to Bin Laden, who provided the financial backing, and recruited some radical Islamicists to do the deed. But where is he? For some reason, this isn't public knowledge. There hasn't been a trial. What's up? Shouldn't this guy be brought to justice? Or is that happening behind closed doors, and if so, why?

This is one of the most stupid and obnoxious claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Watch this video. It was uploaded by a conspiracy theorist: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4389019269529461803 I guess I should briefly point out how crookedly the building collapses on top. This certainly doesn't look anything like any controlled demolition I've ever seen: But all that aside: Look at the debris from the collapse. It's falling much, much faster than the rate at which the building collapses. (the video provides a much better illustration) And there you have it... simple as that.

Because we can empathise with conscious entities, as empathy is the vicarious perception of conscious states. We do not ascribe moral relevance to objects incapible of consciousness because we cannot empathise with them. Can you name something which is incapible of consciousciousness which is more worthy of moral status than a conscious entity, and if so, how would you justify that?

Again, I'd appreciate a rebuttal of the points with which you disagree, rather than a barrage of generalities. Here's a series of points. Care to refute them? In the history of the FISA court system, they had turned down at most 5 warrants and requested 200 be modified, of 18,761 granted ([Wikipedia, trust at your own risk!] That's 0.02% rejected, 1% modified. Is the rise in rejections and requested modifications under Bush indicative of a systemic problem with 1) the Bush administration 2) the FISA court system. Is the argument that the number of requested warrants under the Bush administation exceeded the capacity of the FISA court system to handle them justifiable, and are claims of increased danger legitimate? Let me juxtapose this with: How does the threat of terrorism compare to heart disease? Smoking? Systemic problems with the average US diet leading to an obesity epidemice? HIV/AIDS? Cancer? Or even... people drowning in their bathtubs? People getting struck by lightning? Suicide? Isn't the threat posed by terrorists overblown? Isn't the persistent malaise of a populus in constant fear contributing to an already sagging economy? And are there any legitimate indications that existing security measures implemented by the US aren't effective? Have we caught terrorists in the midst of a plot against the US, ever, since 9/11? Where are the convictions? Excuse me if I'm being igonrant here, but as far as I can tell, we've arrested several terror suspects, but have any ever been convicted, and if so, of what? The sky isn't falling, Pangloss. So what exactly are we giving up our civil liberties for, other than the Administration's insatiable thirst for power? As far as impeachment goes, this administration has been rife with corruption. Billions of billions of dollars we have invested in Iraq have myseteriously disappeared in a slew of accounting errors. Halliburton has garnered tens of billions in a multitude of no-bid Iraq contracts. And the FISA court system has been circumvented in the wake of an invisible enemy. Why? I am not afraid of terrorists. I am afraid of cancer. Could $300 billion have found a cure for cancer? Isn't that a much more pressing issue?

All right, thank you for improving specificity. He has no knowledge of why FISA is applicable to this case. This case centers around why Bush chose to implement this program to circumvent the FISA courts. He's clearly demonstrated ignorance of the issues at hand, and furthermore, his arguments center around his personal interpretation of the explicit text of the Fourth Amendment, rather than case law. IANAL, however, I would say the court decision presently corroborates my position. As to whether or not the decision is upheld during the appeals process, only time will tell. When exactly did I do that? (Not that I don't consider that to be the case...) Al Qaeda is a name the US created when they attempted to try Bin Laden on racketeering charges in January 2001, and a name he subsequently adopted when he discovered that Al Qaeda was what the US was calling his organization. It's a name terrorists with a loose connection to Bin Laden have adopted to draw media attention to their terrorist actions, namely al-Zarqawi. "Al Qaeda" is little more than a moniker self-applied by certain groups of radical Islamicists with an anti-American agenda. Their connections to Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are virtually non-existent. I am of the opinion that the administration has substantially overinflated the terrorist threat against this country as part of a campaign to instill fear in an attempt to increase their power. I'm certain you are aware how viciously I decry the 9/11 conspiracy. I have walked past multiple fire stations in New York. I have seen plaques on the walls for each firefighter who died in 9/11. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim that FDNY demolished WTC7 as part of the 9/11 conspiracy. I find this accusation loathesome and vengeful. I do not believe my qualms with the Bush administration are similarly misdirected. The 9/11 attack was the brainchild of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. It was funded and organized by Bin Laden. It was executed by members of the Islamicist movement. Anyone who says otherwise isn't looking at the facts. I don't listen to Air America

Criticise something specific and I will address it.

Bush, who signed off on the program repeatedly throughout its lifetime. Impeachment. We'll see what happens after this november. This is perhaps the most blatant way in which this administration has attempted to unduly usurp power (with the possibile exception of signing statements) I don't see any way the NSA wiretapping program can be justified, but it will be interesting to see if a legitimate claim can be made about problems with the FISA court system authorizing warrants and if there was ever legitimate timeliness problems which could've resulted in a terrorist attack. But what it comes down to is: when have we ever let timeliness trump a lack of evidence elsewhere in our court system? I'm sure he's glad he's being judged by two of his buddies. This is a war the administration has created. The Al Qaeda network is effectively dead. Terror case after terror case has been overblown by the administration, and time and time again defendants were exhonorated for lack of evidence. I believe we're seeing the same thing happening in the UK right now with the "hair gel bombers" and I believe they were captured due to pressure from the US and not because the opposed an immediate threat. I think the real question is: did the Administration create the circumstances which it uses to justify its attempt to usurp more power?

Unless you are a Constitutional lawyer who has extensively studied case law, your interpretation of any given amendment counts for jack. Sorry. You appear to be completely out of touch with this issue, and reality. Could you please study it a little, then get back to me? FISA has been the centerpiece of this case. And this is why armchair lawyering should be shunned. Trying to make arguments based on your own interpretation of the text of the Constitution alone, ignoring all surrounding precedent, is foolish.

Big Brother is watching you

You're confused. The problem here isn't the First Amendment, it's the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seisure. Beyond the Fourth Amendment, there's also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act (FISA) The US Constitution

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit.ap/index.html So what's next? Will the appeal uphold the ruling? Will anyone ever be held responsible?

Let's not degrade into a semantic argument here: which has a greater capacity for conscious experience, a newborn baby or an adult pig?

I used to watch FNN every day after work (with a little bit of herbal enhancement)... namely the Bill O'Reilly/H&C block. There'd usually be 5 gems or so a night between the two shows of thoroughly ironic hilarity. Nowadays, between Keith Olbermann, the Daily Show, and YouTube I get these gems delivered straight to me without having to watch the interstitial crap. And watch out... O'Reilly will get inside your head.

And he thinks Bill Clinton should be UN Secretary General! Please... he's not fooling anyone. Bill O'Reilly claims his show is a "No Ideology Zone". It's clearly anything but. Bill O'Reilly rails against left-wing radio commentators and columnists. When was the last time you saw Bill O'Reilly talk about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage going over-the-top? Bill O'Reilly claims he's always been registered an independent, and deliberately tried to cover up having been registered a Republican for years, then when exposed writes it off as clerical error. Bill O'Reilly's token left-wing stances, in a pathetic attempt to appear moderate to meet the supposed "No Ideology Zone" angle of his show, pale in comparison to his multitude of right-wing positions. He constently rails against left wing media personalities, and, much like you (and Hannity) love to do, breaks everything down into "the left" and "the right". That's especially ironic, Pangloss, because you and I are both excellent examples of how people don't fit into those nice cookie cutter groups. I really wish you'd stop seeing things in terms of "the left" and "the right" (I guess here you at least subdivided "the left" into "the Loathing Left"). Now granted, O'Reilly is more liberal than, say, Sean Hannity, but that's not saying much. At least in Hannity's case his blatant right-wing views are offset by the unseemly, leperous lizard-man that is Alan Colmes. All in all, Bill O'Reilly is an example of the systemic right-wing bias in the allegedly "fair & balanced" programming on FNN.