jackson33

Guilty of being naked at home;

iNow; Since you brought an old thread back, that does interest me;

Drug usage policy from Libertarians....

toasty quotes;

Toasty; Reid and Polosi have current approval ratings of 7 and 9%. Reid will likely lose his seat, even if he pulled out a Nevada Win (seriously doubt). For the record, Steele or not, I believe the tactic (slogan), will be a repeal of the HC Bill, for as many Democratic House members as Republicans. Obama is now trying (not very convincing) trying to go centrist for the upcoming elections, trip to Afghanistan, allowing some oil exploration in the gulf, but is simply a tactic. I don't see a need to go back over Newt's political problems, but a great many others, just as serious (some worse) ethics violations, have come to light since his. If he decides to run for President or is picked for VP, they may and most certainly will be brought back up. It's ashame from my perspective, but maybe he can serve in a Republican Administration in 2013...

bascule; The actual NDebt since Reagan had remained near 60-65% of the GDP. All this really means is expansion was keeping up with debt, or in the case of the Republican Congress in the 1990's, an actual surplus was attained, some older Bonds paid off, with nothing replacing them and in fact many were reduced to 3-5-10 years notes, where the norm had been 30 year T-Notes (much cheaper interest rates). I think Bush DID go back to 30 Year Notes after the Wars began, which would have some cum effect on current debt, but you couldn't get anyone to buy a short term note today, which wouldn't keep up with inflation.

juice; I've been looking for some legitimate comments from you, that I could give a reasonable answer, having spent many years in Kingsville and doing several projects all over CC...I've noticed your bio, infers 'Student'. In all probability their may be quadrillions of Stars out their in various stages of life, a good share 2nd or third generation (formed from previous matter) giving the same or near same element content as our own Star, the Sun. To say organic life in some form, does not exist elsewhere would then not make sense. Now as for 'Intelligent Life', that would be a different story, but going opinion, it would be my guess, it's very common, probably exist in some form (more or less than our own) in our own Galaxy, the Milky Way. Note; In real time (today) any part of the Universe, is probably very much like what we feel exist in our area or nearby area, NOT what's received as past time pictures. Getting there; The biological Human is a very fragile object and really doesn't live very long or likely never will. If we ever built a space ship, that could travel near the speed of light, by the time it could reach that speed, any humans on that ship, would be second generation, not to mention the probable time required to slow back down. Even here, if these and maybe 100 other major obstacles involve are overcome in the far future, and some how a near Earth like planet (size -gravity-, water and atmosphere the most important things), we evolved up through a resistance or acceptance of certain micro life (germs/Virus) that would be most likely very different anyplace else. As for "time Travel", as mentioned it's simply not going to happen by way of Einstein's formula when passing the speed of light, if it's someday achievable (science says NO), then certainly not by man himself. There are theories for 'Time Travel', machines (warping time itself) or bending space with in an area of a craft and so on, but certainly nothing definitive today. Leader Bee; Atmosphere is not even required for many life forms on the earth or are any of the requirement for humans necessary for other life in this planet, much less Titan or even Mars or the other planets. We have found life, deep in the Ocean, where pressures and heat generated from core vents are extreme and now we know life (shrimp like creature) exist deep in the Antarctic Glaciers. Plantflife exist where moisture is almost unheard of, then again in the oceans or lakes, some living thousands of years. Since, I'm in a discussion on having a 'Question/Speculations' sub forum under the "Physics" and other sections, and this a good example, I'll repeat my suggestion, while addressing you all, noting 7-25-57 post by the three posters. I have left a few openings for sound rebuttals, by the "Experts" and this could go to a legitimate thread, under physics...guess I better add, in my opinion.

I found this Note, under a definition of Scientific Theory, which actually could be used to argue the meaning. But what it does suggest is that theory by nature, invites different viewpoints, most certainly discussion of theory to allow the broadening of the concept.

Having just reviewed your, Astronomy/Cosmology sub forum in the "Physics" section, 'michel123456' makes a lot of sense. There aren't very many threads (A&C) that couldn't, probably wouldn't, have been placed in a "Questions-Speculation", or where the slight movement with in a topic would hurt anyone's feelings, if it was simply an additional sub-forum. This probably true for Biology and Chemistry, as well noting most people are in fact testing an idea or asking a question. An additional benefit, would be an upgrading from speculation, if the thread develops into something relevant or promising. I would also suggest the words 'Temporarily Moved' could be used occasionally, when demoting a thread, rather then a rant about the rules...if you stick with the current system.

Megabrain 4/20/09, just after thread was dropped to PS

swansont; I don't think you realize how many people have an interest/passion in science, especially now that baby boomers are retiring. During the 40's thru the 60's and to some degree on to this day, many folks read science articles, without much time or the means to follow up for additional information. We and I do mean myself as one, after retirement and the advent of the Internet, renewed our interest, at the level of these accumulated references from the past. Popular Science, other publications and Science sections in newspapers/magazines were and probably still were/are, well read by us, engaged in other fields. In turn these people as I did years ago, will google one of these allusive science issue, Astronomy, Biology, Physics or others and find information available with specification unknown to their generations, read or now can listen to specific viewpoints, with the ability to ask questions or reply with their own viewpoint. Television Documentaries are also popular, run and rerun many times, but for the most part are a one way media and as you know, are not always accurate. To my point; Many of us, older people or today's students, not familiar with today's science method or this unquestionable acceptance of current understandings (really new to us, we distinguished between science law and theory), will read through a forum, many times getting shut down on our first time posting in science or never bother posting, but have a history in other sub-forums, most Science Forums now offer. To carry over that 'Science Method' for acceptance to some social issue, Historic Event or Philosophic/Religious other two-sided issues, is being disingenuous to the poster or potential poster, in my opinion. I don't mean to pop your bubble, but most people knee deep in science, science issues or a science career are NOT going to come here, to learn something. There are just too many other places they can go, if they have that much time, in the first place. If you can ban, censor, delete posters in Science, which does happen from their first post (Megabrain, a reputable English moderator and former NASA advisor, from another Science Forum, thread was dropped to speculation and quit), then you can certainly punish or ban a member on their first or second post on any sub-forum. To the thread; The simple fact Administration, would ask questions of their active membership is a plus, or the continuous replies to members questions. More often than not, most forums Science/Political or what have you, will simply maintain their original model, hoping for the best...Oh, and I don't have any complaints on the quality of moderation either. If you continue to have 'percieved problems' in Politics or some sub-forum, I don't think you do, you might consider picking a single moderator for that or any non-science sub forum. Pangloss, seems to get along with everone there, as does ParanoiA and Mr. Skeptic or bascule, seem to be well liked, from both sides.

Keep in mind, the Constitution is simply a diagram for governing, a process to allow addressing/judging issues as they evolved over time. If you think about, a good many changes in law over these years have been based on these procedures, without a need to change that format. Most Constitutions, States or where used in Governments, have hundreds of amendments, compared to our 27, then 11 done at one time**. What you probably trying to do is clarify the ambiguity of the wording, which is what most people would like to see, simple wording with a purpose for today's world, then probably more directed to the current amendments, not the Constitution. Let you imagination run wild for a few minutes, on the simple duties authorized Congress or those allowed the States. That wording is simple and easy to understand, but if each ten years or 40 years, additions were made, to one, dropping from the other, just what those list would look like today. On actually amending, it was made difficult for a reason; A method for governing should be consistent or unchanged without major majority of that society being involved. What's been surprising to me is the second way, has never been used, noting up to 38 States take issue with the current HC Bill, but if a National Convention is ever called, that would be the time for other proposals. Congress has been quite happy, doing their thing, without outside interference.

If the question is "Would you support, less expensive Health Care, easily accessible and at least held to today's quality standards", the probability is 95% would say YES. No question here. You could ask hundreds of questions, getting some very positive responses (Would you favor a 2 month vacation- with pay, free utilities for every residence or that Government should subsidize gasoline price to .20 per gallon through out the Country, just a couple. It's the reality of what is possible, practical or the road required to get anything desired. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Review the above said "Real Time Debt Clock". My mind, not unfamiliar with numbers, cannot digest these figures or conceive a way out of the pending and unavoidable consequences. If accurate, today we have spent 3.5T$, with a 1.4T$ deficit for this year alone and the FY does not end until October 1st 2010. Our GDP is near stagnant at 14.3T$ and that 12.7T$ NATIONAL DEBT, could place us over the 100% of GDP early in fiscal year 2011, budgeted to be and increasing to an additional 8T$ over the next 9 fiscal years (W/O, HC Reform or anything thing else added in the future). If your not convinced yet, look at the DEBT obligations not figured into these or future figures as they materialize of 108T$. If you want to vilify republicans, be my guest, prescription drugs represent 18T$ of this figure and not 9 years into the program. a five year old article on that and as will be the HC Bill/Cost, nothing has been done to correct that...

It's not a NEW BILL, it's the Senate Bill that passed Christmas Eve 2009 (60-40), unamended and passed. Another bill, a 'Reconciliation Bill' was also passed, basically recommending certain changes to the passed Senate Bill, including to the Emergency Education Funding Act, created during the Banking Crisis 2008 (basically creating a new Federal permanent responsibility) and a House Chamber responsibility (the emergancy funding part). Any changes made, budgetary in nature, will require an additional Senate vote, requiring a plurality vote only 51-49 or 50-50 with the VP making the deciding vote, after the President signs off on that original Senate Bill. It's a bit complicated from here, but many things could happen, but highly unlikely anything will happen. Their objective (Democrats), would be to keep their bill in tact, that the House passed, otherwise it could go back to the House for another vote, not stray into the substance of that original Senate Bill. On limiting profits, for an insurance company, I suppose there could be a limit for profits, but the object is to regulate any future profits with a certain limit set for even a request by an Insurance Company, no different than States do today (regulate) on Utilities. For instance a utility can only request an increase cost to their consumers, if profit levels fall below a pre-set limit. With all this talk over opinions; This is the way I understand the situation and I'm well aware others may disagree...Having said that, it is my opinion, many things in that original Senate Bill could be used to alter that substance, shortly after or long after the Bill is enacted, which is the day the Bill is signed, by the President.

While probably straying from the threads intent, it's long been my opinion, College is a total waste of time for well over half those that graduate. Early in high school, I don't understand why more aptitude testing or interest evaluations couldn't be done to direct students toward what most likely are their interest and capabilities. Then there is always the implied guaranty for success, in finishing HS, then especially if some degree is achieved before going out into the real world. College may be a good place to meet a future spouse or have a good time, but rarely a direct ticket to success, quite to the contrary. As an employer over many years and hearing others, including Ophie (high end jobs), this forum, few actually look at resumes to evaluate education, for other than how it pertains to the jobs being applied for or in some cases, stability of character by finishing school, grade averages or general curriculum means very little. Today, I would suggest, many employers will use the term 'over qualified' just to deny a job, where any longevity is an issue.