Phi for All

The conservative part of me knows you're just projecting worst case scenarios on the whole process. It's simple too. You take what you fear most and pretend that's the way it is in every case. The hardest part is ignoring the fact that most people don't become dependent. The liberal part of me knows it's all perspective. Everybody wants to help the widow with five kids, nobody wants to pay for freeloaders, and we all want the Constitution to be upheld. But the progressive part of me really just wants all this tax money spent more wisely, and that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a very long time. We know changing things takes time but we also know you have to start somewhere. Realizing that we all deserve a shot at good health JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CIVILIZED is a very good start.

So... it's only good because it works so well? Did I miss why we want to change that? You must know different scientists than I know. Socially, I'm happy if they mumble while looking at MY shoes instead of their own. The bit about how they subliminally use their superior intelligence sounds like sour grapes to me. Sorry, but the understanding of life is a pursuit older than science, probably older than religion. It got us all the way to the Dark Ages. Science has gotten us the rest of the way, and appears, as you yourself suggests, to be much more productive.

Perhaps you're thinking of physics like a tool that uses (for instance) US Standard measurements here on Earth but uses the metric system on Jupiter?

Didn't you love that? "People should have responsible sex and not go around making babies they can't take care of. Oh, and they should do that WITHOUT the best methods the modern world can offer!" Apply that argument to business and they'd be fired in a heartbeat. "Well, boss, we've spent a lot to get to this point in the project and we've been implementing the preliminary goals pretty well, but Cruz over in QC wants to revamp most of it, based on fears that it isn't perfect right out of the gate. Shall we revamp without knowing what might be wrong? Or we could continue implementing and refining based on actual data. Or we could just scrap the whole thing and eat the losses. Or we could scrap Cruz."

Likely enough to have it checked out by a professional.

! Moderator Note It's good protocol to provide a link to supportive evidence as a citation, and then copy/paste only the relevant portion so you aren't forcing people to search for your information "... some where [sic] near the end of the article". Example: From the Harvard Gazette: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/03.14/01-thinking.html Doing this will also make you look less like you're trying to increase hits to other websites. Sound familiar?

I haven't seen any tapes, but whatever security was available had probably been warned to expect attempts on government locations during the shutdown. Wrong behavior in the wrong place at an extremely wrong time. Tragic.

If you increase the salt level in a solution, doesn't that cause it to expand, become hypertonic? Might that swelling cause the pain? Notice that I'm asking and NOT telling. This seems more like chemistry than biology. Let me know if you want me to move it there.

Before that can happen, we need a different voting system. Winner-take-all is a big reason why we have this current ~50/50 fiasco. It would be awesome to have an Eisenhower party, and I'd like to see some ideas from the practically non-existent left be represented as well (even some of those far-left Kucinich kind of ideas, like the public should keep owning our own utilities). Since our current voting practices historically guarantee the emergence of just two major parties, I have to assume those currently pulling strings behind the scenes want it that way. Fewer campaigns to finance, clearer lines to be drawn (us vs them) and it's just easier to fool most of the people all the time this way.

I disagree VERY strongly with this stance. This is NOT a challenge, this is a misrepresentation of the will of the People, this is working outside our democratic process, this is political extortion against the American public. This is many things but it's NOT a challenge. I'm sure the Republicans will make real challenges against the ACA in the future, rightful challenges that follow procedures that allow debate and concession, but if they force another government shutdown it won't be "the fight continues", it'll be a few extremists deciding by themselves that compromise itself is not legitimate. After 40 years of standing fast against turbulent opposition, do you really want Roe v Wade to be written off with a gun to our heads? In 40 years, won't our healthy children and grandchildren be happy the ACA didn't fall prey to corporate thuggery?

Thank you for sharing this. It got lost in the shuffle and I wanted to make sure it gets seen. I really hope Boehner can shower off the crazy he got sprayed with. I'm just sorry we have to pay $12M/hour to get him clean.

This is a community, and as such we feel the hopes and pains and joys and anguish of our members deeply. What strength, support and insight we may offer is yours; please take what you need. Our best wishes go out to your loving family.

C'mon guys, why not share here? Is it my breath? We're smaller than Facebook but with your help we definitely have a higher combined IQ.

And here we have one of our biggest problems as a country in the US. This argument is responsible for viewing welfare as "a sweet ride" for the poor and needy. The media latches onto concerns that the system is being scammed by lazy slackers and suddenly people who are otherwise compassionate start thinking that they've "done [their] part in getting everyone where they are" but others haven't, so welfare = bad. Then they start objecting to public swimming pools because they have their own. Their children have graduated from the public school system so why keep funding it with their tax dollars, haven't they done their part? So the next leap, the one where they start believing national healthcare is welfare or communism/socialism, is actually just a small step. Our news broadcasts (owned by corporations, remember) are full of "investigations" into welfare recipients who own jet-skis and plasma TVs. This makes it seem like this is the norm, and ignores the massive amount of people who don't abuse the system. Our news is very light on success. I find it very ironic that the Republicans are abusing the system themselves with this non-procedural hostage threat tactic in shutting down the very government they swore to administer. I shouldn't, considering they simultaneously stump for fair market practice AND lobby for exclusive deals and legislation to screw over competitors. They argue constitutionality AND ignore the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA.

Sorry, but that makes no sense, because there are parts of the fed that are well worth the money we pay to support it. There are also some VERY dumb parts that benefit only a few and need to be done away with. More efficient is what we need, along with a national awareness about what should be handled privately and what works best funded publicly (like health insurance, imo). We don't have that and we never will as long as people stay misinformed. The government doesn't want people to discover that smarter is better.

Agree with Wxman. He's repeating debunked arguments.

For... homework?

Be careful, that's a slur against the mindless zombie community. AFAIK, they have NEVER done anything like this. This is more of a creationist strategy.

We're plenty outraged, but we're terrified to vote out the devils we know. A vote for a non-major party candidate could very well mean the party you hate most will win. I hear extreme opinions from pundits on both sides of the conservative/liberal fence (OK, liberal for US politics ), saying things nobody I know agrees with, yet these guys always seem to grab the ratings spotlight, so people assume there are a lot of folks who agree with them. And the US media has us so divided by aping the spin given to them by professional politicians (who MUST have gotten it from the corporations they've shackled themselves to) that all they have to do is use a single word like "Immigration" or "Welfare" or "Abortion" and their audience is immediately polarized. And whether you're for or against, you don't change the channel once those words are used. We need more people to stay informed from non-US news sources, imo, because the US ones are all compromised by special interests. You'll never hear about a recall of flammable children's jackets from Burlington Coat Factory or food poisoning from Burger King if you only listen to Clear Channel radio for your news, because they're all owned by Bain Capital thanks to Reagan and Clinton. If you watch US news, you're hearing what the corporation who owns that source wants you to hear, and that means you hear endlessly how poorly "fringe" candidates fare in elections. Billions of dollars goes a long way towards making independent votes seem foolish. We assume politicians are supposed to be sleazy, untrustworthy liars, and we have for so long that most just roll their eyes when hearing about the latest. And the two-party system makes most jump to the defense of their choice ("Ours aren't as bad as YOURS!"), even though that party hardly represents you any more. We're plenty outraged but when it comes to a solution we're poorly informed as to alternatives. "The government" has been made an entity you can't fight. We've become desensitized to the point where we're arguing about details instead of focusing on the fact that right now we've got a small group of extremists who are bypassing our democratic process. They've grabbed power they clearly aren't entitled to, holding us hostage using terror tactics that prevent healthy and productive discussion, and those very real issues are being overlooked by the very outlets we count on to inform us. We're mad as hell and we have no idea what to do about it.

That's because we don't trust you.

Excellent post. And look at the way the science is phrased. It's about the model predicting this or that (which allows for error), NOT that this or that is going to happen (an assertion which leaves no room for error). The scientists are confident but not absolutely certain. Damages are estimated instead of given as surety. I really wish speculators would learn to do this. Nothing sparks a pile-on like claiming something non-mainstream HAS to be the Truth.

WTF3, I didn't notice he'd changed the title!

Or under-explained. The way I read your writing, you think it's a burden because it's too complex for you. Why are you generalizing that to everyone else?

That's a lot of unsupported assertions. You should read the rules about the Speculation section. People are going to want you to support statements like, "The question 'what is life?' is too complex" and they'll want to know what "we are supported pre-scientific observation" means. And you keep talking about burdens. Nobody knows what you mean by "burden of life". Burden of proof simply means you need to support what you assert (e.g., "the burden of proof is on the accuser").

Part of this is true of many politicians in both parties. The salary they make is a drop in the bucket to what they'll potentially make or already have made. That's why some can afford to give it away to charity, like we're supposed to praise their humanity instead of questioning their motivations. A big part of any worker's motivation to be competent is the threat to their wages. It's hard to do that with politicians who already have a lot of money or are guaranteed private sector employment in exchange for their "connections". iNow mentioned a Republican candidate he thinks would work to administer the ACA effectively if elected in 2016. Is there anyone else that wouldn't undermine it without using the normal procedures to do so?