Phi for All

I made that shit up, too.

For every convert, they get to sneak out of Heaven when they're dead, and spend the day in Hell partying. They get to go over the wall for pleasure, and when they do they call it "Ladder Day". This was actually used to name the Church.

You should go back and reread. There is a VAST difference between the baseless, bigoted, and hateful behavior of US conservatives, and the reasoned, rational, and determined behavior of those who've had enough and want a big change. I am very sorry you aren't able to see it. What you do, with your kneejerk centrist reactions, is to lend credence to the crazies, to make the insanity a valid POV that must be compromised with. You give it power it doesn't earn on merit, simply because you think moving towards the center is always best, and always involves compromise. But we've tried, and it's clear one side isn't listening ("Not going to consider your judge, Obama, because...JUST BECAUSE!"). It hasn't worked your way, despite having been tried over and over in the last 20 years or more. Your argument about being better people is ridiculous. This is all about being better people. And about not compromising with the bad people. That IS how one gets better, you know. How? By polluting the good with the bad? Your centrist compromising is guaranteed to give us a tainted movement, something hobbled before it gets to run. You seem to be advocating that capitulation with conservative points of view will help the Sanders Movement, which seems insane. If you want to do better, you need to change. If your system is messed up, you fix what's bad about it. You don't keep some of the bad things and add some good, then hope that it all turns out good. Are you starting to see the problems inherent with your stance?

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/bogus-meme-targets-trump/ Made up.

And while we have very specific feelings about what combat is all about, where the allies and enemies are usually more clearly defined, when it comes to organized crime we have a blind spot. We've romanticized gangsters and thugs, pirates and thieves. We know what they do is outside the law, and yet we admire their loyalty to "this thing of theirs". It dovetails nicely with the numbness to lies and broken promises that politicians have engendered. I think the combat metaphor is being pushed on us, just like taxing the wealthy proportionately is being called wealth redistribution, and gets described as "They're taking money I've earned away from me", so the implication is that the money is being taken from their accounts and given to lazy welfare addicts. Or the famous Republican Death Tax duplicity. Similarly, if it's combat, everyone wants to be on the side of right, and it's a lot easier to get folks roused up when you invoke their patriotism. If people really recognized this as organized crime at the highest levels, where the corporate/military/industrial Mafia gets to write the laws that might stop its rise to power, it could vastly improve the effectiveness of the movement Sanders wants. Maybe we need to classify it with a good sound byte: Highly Organized Crime.

Iirc, we have an embryonic regeneration that we lose before we're born. There is research ongoing that attempts to isolate the mechanism so we might apply it to amputations some day. The problem is, we gave up regeneration for faster-acting scar-tissue long ago. Once we left the safety of the trees in our evolution, we needed a way to quickly stop blood loss and promote healing. Cell regeneration like salamanders (not all lizards) and most fish have requires them to find a safe, quiet place and remain stress-free and dormant during the regeneration.

I agree. Supervillain Evil Dictator would be more of a challenge. It's important to pick the right lab accident to suit the villain.

Your need to equate EVERYTHING borders on the pathological. You'll never know the damage it's done to you.

You've got an idea that you want discuss, that's great. As Endy said, we're one of the few science forums to have a Speculations section for non-mainstream ideas. But it's not for Wild West, free-for-all guesswork. We need science, which means we need evidence. You can't prove your idea is correct, but hopefully we can show where it's wrong, and that will help you make it stronger. Just be warned, we're going to be pretty strict about the evidence. And most physics is modeled by math, so folks are going to ask you for that as well. You should stop calling it a theory, since it isn't. Pop-science and television have warped the real definition. Just like they have with "logic", which has popularly come to mean, "That makes sense to me!" Give us as much rigor as you can. It sounds like you have problems with the LCDM model, so that might be a good place to start. Use your idea to derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit around a planet. We can do this with astonishing accuracy with present models.

How about using an emotional counter? Something like, "How are you going to explain to your grandchildren that there was a consilience of multiple related scientific fields that confirmed the dangers of doing nothing about AGW, but you decided to do nothing anyway? Is 'I'm so very sorry' going to be enough?"

! Moderator Note You should have started this thread on your own, instead of trying to hijack someone else's. This has been moved to Speculations. Please read our special rules for this section. Also, please give a synopsis on your paper. Few here trust vixra as a source of peer review, and it's part of our rules that discussions should be able to take place without going elsewhere, downloading a PDF, or watching a video. And please support your idea with evidence. Math would be very helpful as well. Good luck with disproving physics.

I've read where other countries think we're a bit obsessed about the flag. They considered it a bit fascist to have so many things either draped with the flag, or colored like it. Nationalism run rampant. It's a bit more difficult to define what our flag stands for. Every place you see it, it's flown for a different reason. I've always viewed pride in our flag as a potential. I love the country, but I'm not always patriotic about the actions done in its name. When we do the right thing, it's easy to look on with pride.

This tactic reminds me of calling oneself a skeptic. You assume you're automatically in the right because of your position, because skepticism, like patriotism, can't EVER be bad, right? And then you get to judge anyone who criticizes anything wrong with your country as unpatriotic. Just like Trump gets to say his detractors don't want America to be great again. But Trump is also using gaslight techniques. His lies are denied, he doubles down with confidence on all of them, and he tries to make you think YOU are wrong as you're telling him he's wrong. He's using the worst of the Republican tactics, and he's added his own brand of sociopathic predictions of violence, bigotry, and hatred.

I really hope this blows up in their faces when it comes time to elect Congresscritters. People are sick of this lie that anything coming from Obama is Dark Side.

This should always be a big red flag.

Our past massive immigration efforts are a huge part of what made us great, imo. To act this way now is the height of stupidity, denying ourselves access to one of our greatest assets.

Subjugation is a very good word for what conservative corporations misusing conservative politics as a weapon have done to the USA. I'm absolutely saying it's time to over-compensate to fix the damage done. I think it's very interesting that you defend the specific things we've mentioned as being normal, par for the course, left/right/center politics, yet when mention is made of sweeping changes, of not letting the right have it all their way for a change, you suddenly call it "subjugation". No, not interesting really. More hypocritical. The "loggerhead" you refer to is your centrist, compromising, middle of the road approach. That's where we're jammed up. The Republicans have shown they aren't interested in any real compromise. They want it their way, NEVER Obama's or Hillary's way, simply on moron principles that are about as childish and racist as you can get.

I'm afraid this one's on you. You think we're not doing so bad, that we only need to start putting centrists in office and all will be well. That somehow the center of every argument is the perfect place to be. Well this is the part YOU don't get. If your ship has been off-course for 50 years, because some idiots tied the ship's wheel so we're traveling in big circles to the right, you CAN'T just bring the wheel back to the center. You NEED to compensate heavily left to get back on course. This center you keep describing is NOT our course. We need to have our safety nets back to protect us from greedy, insane, treasonous wealth that has only itself as its focus. People shouldn't be ignored over profit.

! Moderator Note Let's just talk then, and not worry about covering more than is possible.

As the possibility looms nearer, it's scary to hear Trump talking about how his base might riot if he doesn't get the nomination. I think the Republicans are counting on the convention to get rid of Trump, but I think it's clear if he can't bully them into it, he'll go independent. IF he can still get the loans he made to his campaign back.

You're the conservative. You tell me. I've made it clear that my conservative beef is when it's used to stall good legislation, or out of racial spite, or just because your party wants to be monkey wrenches. Certainly I'm not criticizing every single instance of being cautious the way you claim. Are you defending the acts of the Republicans in the US Congress that were admittedly done only to block the POTUS in all things? Is stepping on smart stuff your kneejerk reaction, one of the traits you're proud to call conservative, like intolerance of other's opinions? This is a thread about the Sanders Movement. Obviously (or so I thought), the conservative logjam is something that needs to be removed before progress can be made on the scale a movement like this demands. I can't see a single way to make this a bipartisan, unified, concerted effort when half the participants are thinking only of themselves or their party, instead of what's good for the People. It's really not about not tolerating your opinion if your opinion is that I'm against ALL conservative actions. Look, the American People have a lot of ground to make up. We aren't going to see that with Hillary, not even if she got 8 years. Trump being elected POTUS is now on a list of Global Risks. Nobody conservative is going to dig us out, only deeper. Sanders is a solution that doesn't put us more in debt, more at the mercy of special interests, or screaming hatred in the streets.

Please don't ever do this again. If this was supposed to be funny, it fell quite short.

None? Extreme conservatism going on. How about "The possibility of a lot of excellence is far better than a little bit of something good"? Because you know what? We are, right now, the wealthiest large nation that's ever existed on the planet, despite what our corporations and leadership would have you believe. And we didn't get there by taking little conservative baby steps. We got here by courting massive amounts of immigration that drove innovation. We raced ahead of the world scientifically during WWII (although the resulting conservative campaigns against intellect and learning have wasted much of that momentum). And our commitment to Common Law has helped us overcome many of the problems apparent in Europe with all it's cultural, economic, and legal obstacles. America's greatest, most memorable, most proud moments were NEVER achieved by conservatism. The negativity doesn't fit with a country that's so wealthy. It's time to bring leadership in line with what the People want, and the corporations that enjoy all the benefits of an American charter are going to have to start behaving like corporations, instead of like People with immunity from prosecution. We can afford to have a LOT of excellence. They've been dangling that "little bit of something good" carrot so long now you can see it's rotten.

I can't help but think much of the nay-saying about Sanders is because of the makeup of Congress. It's critical for a Sanders Movement to gain as much control of Congress as possible, otherwise he'll get his intellectually-based legislation blocked worse than Obama. And perhaps Sanders isn't addressing this enough, not pushing for the states to give him the necessary seats to get a majority. On the other hand, if Congress were to get shaken up, but Clinton wins, I shudder to think what kinds of largesse the oil, banking, and telecommunications industries will enjoy at taxpayer's ultimate expense. Sanders needs a clear road for all his changes, but I think Clinton wouldn't change enough that's bad, and would introduce a lot more bad if she's unopposed by Congress, and has the full backing of the corporate-owned media. At a time when NPR should get some serious attention as an informative source of untainted journalism, I don't think Clinton will help.

Let's also not forget Nixon's maneuvers with Ehrlichman and Edgar Kaiser of Kaiser Permanente, the beginning of our healthcare insurance/"managed" account nightmare. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_taped_conversation_between_President_Richard_Nixon_and_John_D._Ehrlichman_(1971)_that_led_to_the_HMO_act_of_1973: This was sold to the public as a non-profit solution. Nixon, liar, Trump, liar. The profits came from reduced care. Criminal in my mind, treasonous if I was prosecuting.