Phi for All

No, I began to feel it starting with Reagan's trickle-down, and just got fed up during Bush II. The first seemed more of an oratory, but the latter was far more anal. And here is what you quoted. On that note, quite likely we have nothing more to discuss. If you'll note the time-stamps at the bottom of the actual posts, I quoted what you wrote at 8:46 am MDT, but you edited it 7 minutes later at 8:53 am MDT. Unlike you though, I'm not implying you did it maliciously.

But these are the very things that you seem to support with your arguments. The health insurance idea is just my opinion, of course. By offering a competitive government-backed (read "taxpayer-backed") health insurance, we let the market decide which is best, and with the least amount of change to the healthcare system as a whole. My point is that anything progressive that's suggested gets shot down by people with your point of view as "bringing our nation to an end". It seems very simple to me, for instance, that we should adjust our tax structure back to the level it was when we were prosperous. Same with regulations that protected the consumers, citizens and businesses alike. Businesses still did very well under those regs, and the vast majority of the people did better also. Your arguments are very vague, waving your hands at some kind of evil liberalism without any cogent examples of why it's evil. And then you bring up the extreme views of others, saying you agree with them, but when pressed you put your hands in the air and claim they aren't your words. I can see why Romney is your guy, both of your overall stances suffer when people bother to check the facts.

We could set things right. We could reform our politics, end special interests and reform campaign financing, remove the waste from government programs while strengthening the ones that work, start a national health insurance program that allows doctors to be doctors who put health above the dollar, put regulations back that protect our economy from relentless business models, tax the top and the corporations at the rate they were taxed when the USA was at it's most prosperous all around, and bring some integrity back into our representative government. The real problem, rigney, is going to be convincing people who hold your point of view that we're not "bringing our nation to an end" as we're setting things right.

! Moderator Note I'm going to move this over to Computer Science from Engineering and see if we can get some more replies.

With Cajun accents, you be polin' a whole otha pirogue, cher.

This incident happened over 50 years ago. I don't consider it to have happened in "such modern times". Testing and standards were different back then.

The deeper voice part is untrue. There are many movies with examples of southern US accents, but I think you're better off googling "southern US accent" and then filtering for videos. And the accent is discernibly different by southern state. North Carolinians sound different than Texans.

Pedal comes from the Latin pedis, meaning "foot", and kangaroos have two of them on the ends of their legs, thus making them bipedal. Their forelimbs are considered arms equipped with hand-like paws. That crawl-walking they do to move short distances actually involves their tails as well. They balance on tail and forelimbs like a tripod and then move their feet forward.

! Moderator Note Please note that this is a discussion forum. If this is a drive-by wall o' text copy/paste rant, it will be removed. If you wish to stay and discuss your ideas, per the rules you agreed to when you joined, it will be allowed to remain, as will you.

In discussion here, we've never been able to come up with scientifically meaningful supportive evidence of God, much less proof. Proof seems impossible.

Why do you think these forces oppose each other? Do you have such a device? Can you explain it or show some experiments? Do you have any evidence to support this statement? It will take 500 years to do what, exactly?

Ultimately, to me, Romney represents corporate models that have learned to profit from manipulating the government in ways that don't promote the general welfare. I don't think General Electric has any products that represent the kind of ROI they got when they spent $84.4M lobbying for tax breaks that saved them $8.4B. Helping make businesses wealthy at the expense of tax revenue is NOT my idea of free market capitalism at its best. In 1955, corporate taxes were 27.3% of federal revenue. In 2010, they were a mere 8.9%, yet they continue to get Republicans like Romney to scream about overtaxation of "the job creators". I guess if you strangle education long enough, you get people dumb enough to believe anything. And of course there's the integrity issue. "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth" is not the mantra for how I want to be represented in my government. I was born a moderate, progressive Eisenhower Republican, and what the right wing has done to that proud party makes me sick.

If you saw one under your car tire, you'd still say, "What the heck is... oh, it's a tennis ball."

Depends on how finely shredded they are. At some measurable level I'm sure they would.

I could do it. If they're still considered tennis balls after being shredded.

My point is that "in control" sort of assumes we're the puppetmasters, working in a sort of ex vivo kind of way to engineer the evolution of other species, rather than simply being part of nature and the natural pressures that affect such mechanisms. Does that make sense? We're a part of the evolution of every life form on the planet, as they are in ours.

Do you mean "geyser", the jet of water from a hot spring? Is this for homework?

Evolutionarily speaking, are pandas worth conserving? I think the question itself assumes that we're controlling evolution rather than simply being part of its mechanism. Whatever the panda is doing to keep itself alive to reproduce (including being worthy of the help or harm humans can bring) will continue to work until it doesn't.

Sounds like a homework question.

Here's the mistake in your argument: "As a general rule, we do it because it feels good" does not equal "we only do sex because it feels good".

What pressures from overpopulation do you think would affect a mechanism like natural selection?

It's true, I really am beginning to think you have a smutty mind. And [math] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2} = \sqrt{\pi} [/math] is an integral using LaTex code.

LaTex is the scientific notation system we use here for maths. You know, I'm beginning to think you have a smutty mind, chilled_flourine.

Most of the states trying to change their voter ID laws are being very authoritarian about the process, which scares away many low-income and minority voters. Many of those folks want as low a profile as possible, but still value their right to vote. I think it's clear the Republicans don't want those types of people to vote, since they're the very people who rely more heavily on the programs the Republicans want to diminish or abolish altogether. This is so obviously NOT about voter fraud, it's about registering only the right people. I don't remember if it was mentioned before, but I remember reading where voter fraud in national elections already carries a $10,000 fine and five year prison sentence. It just isn't worth it for the little good it might do you.

Star Trek is the one I want to live in, Firefly is the one I most like to visit.