ParanoiA

Awesome, D H. By they way...what ever happened to the good ole days when they just spied on everybody anyway? Wasn't that better? You can't prosecute anyone with the intelligence, yet you achieve a priceless advantage.

Damn fine post Snail. And could the golden ratio have anything to do with this?

Sounds fair to me.

I'm quite the dog lover, and I'll never own a "bad ass" dog. Spyman is right on the money on this one in that it always seems like bad dudes want to own bad dogs. Yeah, it's anecdotal I guess, but oddly prolific. The thing is, I believe it's the pack behavior that keeps Rots and Pits on the black list. I've had several friends with these two breeds and I have several neighbors with Pits. The problem with aggressive breeds raised correctly and responsibly is that they still seem to be drawn to competition for rank. Hence, attacks are usually on children, or others lower in the pack. I don't believe they turn on their alpha owners nears as much, but I could be wrong. This is a big reason why the argument about "how they're raised" is largely irrelevant to me. The best, most humane dog owners and trainers even have problems with aggressive breeds. They're animals - not products manufactured to our specs. Of course they're not going to "work right" all of the time. Dogs misunderstand and make mistakes on human intent as well, and it doesn't always indicate that they're mean or bad dogs - but if the end result is an injuried human, we have little sympathy. So, to me, it all boils down to accepting that "bad ass" dogs are not perfect, no matter how well raised and trained. So, who's going to get it when one of these "bad ass" dogs makes a mistake or gives in to the temptation to raise their position in the pack? Your kids? Your spouse? A neighbor? You? They should not be banned, that's an outright violation of our rights. Banning, requiring licenses, and so forth - all blatant majority bullying. Instead, punish the owners for their dog's actions. I know most states do this, but in any case I've followed, it's always been treated as minimal offense. That's what needs to change. An attack from an aggressive animal like a Pit should be considered attempted murder, with the charge directed at the owner in most cases.

I completely agree with this. The ethical treatment of animals is morally necessary, in my opinion. I think Snail's post is the most enlightening and directly relevant to your statement here.

You want to trade one hack for another?

Yeah, I don't know what the criteria is for Nobel prize winners, but I don't doubt Gore's personal conviction and passion for the subject matter. I suppose if he gets it he should use it. I know I would have it on my resume.

I haven't been paying attention, I had no idea it had gone this far. So, let me get this straight...The local election officials determine when primaries are to be held (assuming because they are state level officials), but the national election officials determine what states can be counted and so forth? I don't understand alot about primaries. I thought it was more protected by law than it sounds. Could the democratic national committe/party ignore any state's primary votes that they want? It almost sounds like "primaries" are more of a priviledge provided by the national officials.

What a great development. You want to know why SCHIP deserved to be vetoed EVEN IF you're a supporter of stealing other people's wages and using them for your charity work? Because even people making 3 times the poverty level, that own businesses and property, including a $500,000 home, with two kids in private school, with monthly surplus income that exceeds the amount required to cover health insurace still get covered under this entitlement. You won't hear it from CBS News. Go ahead, read and soak it in. This is half of the story - the half they want you to hear. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/28/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3308891.shtml Here's the other half: http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/schip-boy-fraud.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/10/schip-fraud-boy-who-delivered-democrat.html And you can find that other half all over the net. Priceless excerpt: And I had to throw this one in here because, of course, this is what "parading children for political gain" is all about...an unchallengable advocate: http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/republicans-smear-12-year-old-boy.html See? You can't refute little kids no matter how full of shit they are. Can't be done. Just go ahead and try...

I guess you're right. I thought it would be more obvious that I was referring to Donnie's post, conversing with Pangloss - since he's the one that corrected her. Ah well.

Why do we see the wisdom in natural selection, or at least accept the superiority of evolution in nature, yet damn it's machinations? We understand the necessity of animals to murder for food, and how that plays a role in natural selection, yet we're simultaneously rejecting that selection event by calling it immoral. Based on what? Violence? Pain? How arbitrary. These are just the mechanics that are necessary to those ends.

Yeah, Bush is the idiot huh? Sorry, but that's funny.

Yes. It's alright to kill a pig even if he was as smart as a 30 year old man. He's food. We're not food for ourselves, so eating children or any of our own kind goes against the propogation of the species, so I don't recommend it. So "pain" is your grand partition of morality? Seems a weird spot to plant a flag. Don't insects feel pain? Pain serves a function to the individual - whatever species. This function is just a mechanism - I don't understand why eating an animal is bad because the mechanism might operate at the time of death.

If someone has to vocalize fantasies of annihilition of other countries to score brownie points with their people then why on earth do you want to do business with them? Would you personally trust someone who regularly advocated the murder of a family down the street? I'm not sure I trust Iran with fire at this point. Hopefully we're secretly investing in defensive schemes because the nuclear age is about to get crazy, I'm afraid.

Fair enough, iNow. "On any level" was too broad of a modifier. I'm speaking about nation-to-nation business and government. I would never advocate isolation like that from any country's people.

Yes. But refrain from the value judgment on the face of that logic. We've done worse than you're outlining as well. I really don't think any country has a monopoly on innocence, nor is free from blood or shame. But our cultures clash on levels so fundamental, that rationale between us is limited and precarious. I don't like my country interfacing with the middle east really on any level.

Maybe the Union is the problem? With such a centralized federal government, there's not alot of variety to be had in politics, hence little appeal or interest. If we had a more diverse political climate throughout the states, perhaps people would get more involved since it would effect them more directly, in general anyway. I completely agree. Like the "Rock the Vote" swindle. Somebody, please quit telling uninformed people they have a voice at the voting booth. I want MY vote to count and it will be worth more if you don't vote.

That part of the world is not rational. There is nothing rational about carrying about hatred and wars and never ending violence because of religion and ancient feuds. They're still drawing lines, fighting, suicide bombing, and marketing terror - extremely archaic ideas of humanity, ridiculous intensity in religion and service. Obvious generalizing, but they do not share our dynamics in rationality.

Well sure, but this point was specially made for bascule. We agree on civilian rights to arms, or we did at one time anyway, so I thought I'd test his alliance to "more civilized" countries when it doesn't compliment his position. Obviously, I'm not buying the more civilized argument. Of course you're right, but that's a whole 'nother deal.... Not sure I agree as they're not interdependent. "Basic duties of government" can wildly vary from person to person and I was just sharing my opinion of what I believe those duties should be. "Civilized" is predefined, albeit subjective as well. __________________________________________________________________ The insult ingrained in government programs to help the less fortunate is a big contributor for such adamant opposition. When these ideas were first rolled out and implimented the concept was about "helping". The responsibility duly sat on those in need of this help, and we were helping them achieve it. Look how far we've come from that mentallity. Now if we don't "help", we're victimizing. Hence, the entitlement attitude. That is an insult to the american taxpayer. It started out as an extra, and has ended up a demand. It's wrong to take people's money and redirect it for charity. The more we do it, the more it's expected and the more entitled society becomes. Charity should always remain a matter of persuasion - in that, help is asked, appreciated and responsibility stays where it should. This also helps to create the natural anxiety necessary to propel people off of their asses and to do something with themselves since it's not gauranteed.

Do you also envy their restrictive gun laws (except Finland)? Luxembourg bans all civilian ownership of guns. If you're going to use a "more civilized" argument to advocate copying them on Healthcare, then surely you must also advocate duplicating their position on firearms. I don't believe they're more civilized at all, just more liberal; socialist. And of course, it's a popular phenomenon for liberals to believe they are more civilized. Because that's a great way to get occupied and owned. Libertarians come in a variety of stripes and I'm of the stripe that private police forces and militias are silly. There are things the government gets right and things they ultimately have to take responsibility for, even if they don't get it perfect - armies, law and order...basic duties of government.

This sounds serious...sticks and stones can't break his bones.

What countries are those? That are more civilized that is? How are they about the gun laws you cherish so much? Are you following their more civilized example on that one too?

I think it's because there is a body of thought driving this that this behavior was wrong. That this will spiral out of control and suddenly everyone is running around with hoax devices. My thought, obviously, is who cares? Like so many have pointed out in here, if anything can be bomb, then essentially everyone IS running around with hoax devices already.

Well this got interesting while I was at lunch I see. Why is it that society has to be tolerant of your geek fashion statement but you don't have to be tolerant of their ignorance of it? People don't have to recognize your fashion statement, nor like it at all. Conversely, you don't require their approval to sport it. Neither you, nor society is required to understand each other. You're only required to obey the laws of the land. Sooooooo, When we misinterpret your fashion statement - that's called being human. Of course, so is admitting that you made a mistake in suspecting a LED display for a bomb...

I wonder if a case could be made that parents who buy cars, TV's, DVD players, game systems, cell phones and etc but don't have health insurance for their kids, are guilty of neglect. If health insurance is so cruel to do without, then why aren't we jailing these parents or taking their kids away? After all, the kids are victims right?