ParanoiA

Is it possible for a planet to orbit a "group" of stars? Seems like I remember some sci-fi I read as a teenager that involved a planetary system with multiple suns. It seemed to make sense at the time, but now that I've enjoyed a little popular science in my life, not that I understand it really, it seems like it wouldn't be possible. So, what gives?

I don't believe in lifting, so the question is sensless. I'm agnostic about mass, so this entire exercise is tripe.

Well allow me to be the contrarian, then. What's the beef with negative ads? Actually, I get it (I always compared it to interviewing for a job and instead of telling the potential employer what you can do, you berate the other guys out in the waiting room as twits). But, there's nothing inherently wrong with a negative ad. Particularly when the media has not done the background work on Obama. We've been following McCain peripherally for decades, but Obama is brand spanking new to most of us. So, negative ads can force honesty into the debate. By McCain running negative this and that, Obama has to respond in some way, thus we learn new things about him. Things we may never have known if he didn't have to defend himself. And when people are seemingly following someone like a "messiah", this becomes a very necessary check mechanism. Also, consider what's really negative. If we were zapped back to 1800 and I wanted to run on an anti-slavery policy I might point out the negative effects of slavery, the inhumanity and the shameful duplicity of the pro-slavery advocates. But how negative is that? I suppose technically it is a negative message - an attack - but it's a superior message, a good one. Anyway, 1 out of 3 ain't bad, relatively speaking - for now. Obama's certainly got the high ground with 1 out of 10 and I'm impressed with that. Seriously, that's quite a notable achievement and entirely compliments his campaign message. Major thumbs up there.

Well, I can see where my argument can mimic fairness, but it's more about a check and balance routine to neutralize the conflict of interest to the respect of the republic. Where there is property to be gained there is opportunity to be exercised; without individual monetary gain the duty to the republic is more honest. And that sure seems like a crucial principle for a republic to consider.

Well, I'm just thinking I don't want to spend a bunch of time reading biology books to figure out how to organize the various molecules into a match, that would be a lot of work. I'd rather just jiggle the little bastards no matter how they're organized. And yes, I think I'm actually talking about psychokinesis, sounds cooler too. Hells yeah! If my mentally powered friction trick is super duper intense I'll bet I can get an instant flame. That's pretty much what I needed. On to phase II...

Glad you're enjoying it. BUT, wouldn't that take a more intimate knowledge of atomic and molecular structure to construct the resemblance rather than just jiggle the damn things? I'm more concerned about flame now. How do we get instantaneous flame? (without shapeshifting wood into a flamethrower, please) I think I like this section.

So, if I'm telekinetic could I not cause instant flame by violently vibrating the atoms and molecules of a spot on a 2 x 4? There's money on this...

I'm not sure if you're responding to me or not because I did not propose an objective metric to "fairness". I threw "fairness" out the proverbial window. I'm more concerned with the structure of power. It only seems obvious that if we are all going to enjoy 1 man = 1 vote, then all men must be equally invested. All men must stand to lose the same. My argument is about disproportion, not fairness. I have percentages in mind. I realize D H's argument on how 10% effects a millionaire differently than the impoverished. I say it's irrelevent how much one "hurts" or "doesn't hurt". It's more important to check the conflict of interest. It ends the class warefare the two parties use to abuse us and keep us in contention with one another, when it's a constitutional principle to require an equally invested citizenry; when you can't load all the tax burden on another. I'm surprised we haven't totally taken over the rich. There's nothing stopping everyone from just taking a look around and realizing that "Hey, how about ALL of us make THAT guy pay for everything? There's lots of us, and only one of him so let's stick it to him!" That's a blatant conflict, in my opinion. How can you trust your fellow citizen when it's entirely in their interest to tilt the burden of funding on you? It's a conflict that I have never seen in the business world. I don't know anyone that would invest 10 times as much into something as someone else, even receiving 10 times the profit in return, and consent to the same level of power, or vote as that person. This is something I've chewed on for awhile, never really posted it. Obviously there's consequences, but there's also benefits and admittedly I'm not sure what all of them are - in either category.

But is that where they got their claim from? I don't know, I'm asking. You use the qualifier "I think" in that sentence, so I was left to assume you were speculating. At that point, it's certainly plausible, but not really refinable.

And that's where I have a problem with subjective notions about taxation. I'd rather go with an objective metric that relies on a principle of structure: equally invested republic. You wouldn't go into a business providing 90% of the funding but only half the say. It would be conflicting to give the other guy paying only 10% of the funding an equal say. They have much less to lose than you. That's ridiculous. And yet, with taxation, we do just that. If we allow disproportion of responsibility based on subjective ideas of "fairness" or "equal pain" then we set up a conflict of interest. Who wouldn't vote to raise taxes on the other guy? Most poor people, anecdotally speaking, are all for the rich covering the burden of taxes. This is akin to that guy only investing 10% voting to shift another 3% to the guy already paying 90%. Equal say, equal vote for an unequal investment equals inequality. (Hehe, say that three times fast) Anyway, that's my two cents.

That's a thoughtful post Phi. I used to feel the same way about the Paul's and Kucinich's, in that the views I didn't share seemed extreme and scary. As if all of his preferences and particulars will become law...how silly of me. I was reminded of the importance of role playing. No I'm not talking about dressing your wife as a hooker and pretending like you picked her up...although that's important too. Rather I'm talking about the idea that we each play a role and it's the summation of the various roles that produces the resultant X. I kept forgetting that the Paul's and Kucinich's play a role, reconciled with the roles of other powers at play - you could say is "checked" with other ideologies and positions - so the resultant law is not "Paul" or "Kucinich" - it's the output of the system. So, all that to say, Paul and Kucinich can be extreme about some things and it's ok. What matters is what the rest of system is made up of. Their goofy ideas have to be pluralized to be realized. Meanwhile, their more workable ideas get tenacious statesmanship to promote them.

Well, in that case, so do I.

Yeah, that actually disturbs me very much. How clear cut can something be when the parties are dead opposite and loyal?

Funny, as much as I carry on about group behavior I never actually considered it in terms of smoking. Makes sense Glider. So why do a portion of us, such as doG and I, not really care about throwing our superiority around, or deluding ourselves with moral righteousness? We both quit smoking, so at one point we belonged to the smoking group and had to convert to the other group. So, we had to deal with dissonance. Why aren't we guilty of the same thing? Or are we really just "silent" about it?

One just has to scroll through this thread to see the partisanship. It's not underlined and highlighted, rather it's in the appeals to split hairs. Look, I understand the impulse, I sure hated hearing about my guy Dr Paul calling evolution "only a theory" that he doesn't even believe in, despite his scientific background. Big hit on my hopes there. Sure I could split hairs and find some goofy statements by other candidates on unsubstantiated beliefs, and they would be valid, and I could use them to admonish my candidate - but that's intellectually dishonest to myself, if nothing else. I just have to admit that he's not perfect and we don't see eye to eye on everything. His core is what I believe in, and what I support. Obama is not the messiah. He's an opportunist. Just like most politicians. Maybe it's an age thing, but I quit proping up my candidate's moral superiority years ago because they will always dissappoint you. Stop expecting McCain and Obama to be perfect, and instead chalk up the hits and misses objectively. It doesn't have to ruin your outlook on your candidate, it just has to realize the reality of modern day politics. Opportunists are the only viable candidates for american politics. I hate that, and like Carlin, I too have a cynical prediction to that end. Look at the two statesmen out of the lot of salesmen brought to us in the primary - Kucinich and Paul. Neither could sway much of the vote at all. The opportunists? They got all the votes. America has spoken. So, don't worry that Obama talked out of his ass and displayed his ignorance in arrogance. That's what opportunists do, it happens. It shouldn't ruin your support of his core. If you're going to follow salesmen, you have to be prepared to deal with their fodder.

No, they're afraid of retaliatory footage of their own "creative editing" people.

Quoted from the Abrams broadcast cited above: Question: Does responding to the subpoena by showing up before the subcommittee create a vulnerability by legally implying a respect to that process; a forefeiture of immunity? Also, what is the intent of executive privilege in the first place? Best I can tell, it's a nature-of-the-beast side effect of the separation of powers. Nothing apparently morally justified by the doctrine. So what gives? I'm not sure I see the ethical need for executive privilege, but it seems to me, if you agree with Berger then Rove clearly should not testify. I concede the point on giving congress the bird, but that's more about sportsmanship, the result is the same: no dung on Bush.

You necromancer. Just to make it official...somebody had to say it. Anyway, I'm not sure about the caring bit. The most annoying example of Snail's post is an older gentleman I work with that takes every opportunity to spout anti-smoking rhetoric, even around nothing but non-smokers. I will admit he's passionate, but I'm not so sure it isn't more about his morally superior resolve not to smoke rather than his care for other human beings. I really like this attitude. I always enjoy telling my story, sharing my experience - when it's asked.

Well, I can certainly see your point. But, I'm also not too privy to any obligatory maneuvering that might be at play between the institutions here either. I'm not sure we can fully grasp what's at stake with the balance of power going on here. I want to be sure I understand that before we start jailing folks. Honestly, I'd rather see a stand up guy. I'd like to see him show up and answer questions because there's nothing to hide, because it's respectful to the people, because it's the right thing to do.

Gee, maybe that last line has something to do with his refusal? Still, like the republicans said, it makes good theatre I guess.

I'm not sure either, but "family time" may attempt to help though. I was perfectly happy never seeing a board game again for the rest of my life, but after giving in for family time, we all enjoy it - even the teenager. Go figure. You can't really do family things on the computer. Computers are an individual level interaction. Video games can alienate the older crowd. So the kids have to dumb themselves down to mom and dad's level of gaming.

Damn, these two are more bent on claiming credit for bullshit they had nothing to do with. I swear. I'd say it's ever bit as bad as McCain's obviously, another point to add in the "speaks from ignorance" column. And that counts, I believe.

I've never played it, but I've always wanted to. I never knew the rules nor had the drive to go learn them on my own and rally my own game together. My wife and I play gin alot and Spades with my parents as a matter of course, so it's not like card games are not attractive to us. Good question.

Yes, it seems the federal government aspires to mirror the impoverished in our country. Poor people typically use this mentallity and it's how they stay poor. Borrowing money to pay off previously borrowed money, with new promises and terms, incrementally growing out of control with each new transfer-with-augment of debt. This is really getting ridiculous. We are putting off one hell of a miserable fall. I'm really, seriously getting concerned about our currency. I always figured it was one of those things that politicians would never let happen; that rhetoric and politics would never stand up to sound currency. I think I'm wrong. Dr. Paul on this housing bill. Or, for a more

My thesis is that suicidal thoughts increase the fatality rate of suicide - and attempts. That has nothing to do with knives, guns, bridges, tall buildings and etc and that proof is found in your own numbers, as well as everyone else's that you've ignored.