Phi for All

We should probably try to figure out what "help from the Republicans" Kyl is referring to in this context. I, for one, highly doubt that the top banks would be looking for regulatory restructuring or systemic risk regulations that favored homeowners over themselves. I think the banks would've liked to embrace Durbin's plan because it would mean the repayment of much of the debt rather than massive foreclosures, which helps the banks fiscally and with their public image. But they don't seem to mind it too much when they can get sweetheart deals from the Republicans that let them set their own regulatory restraints and then get bailed out if things go pear-shaped. The public is becoming wiser and isn't as willing to forgive the "Sorry, federal regulations are tying our hands" excuse, now that we are becoming more aware of the fact that the banks are spending huge amounts of political capital to make these collusive deals that put those regulations there in the first place.

Between the helium and all this hot air, you certainly are getting your balloon blown up. ydoaPs in 2028!

I have been using stevia as alternative to artificial sweeteners for a few years now. It was blocked from import to the US until fairly recently, and it's still not in widespread use here. It takes a bit of getting used to. It's level of sweetening doesn't increase the more you use like sugar does (at least to me - if I use more than one packet it has a bad aftertaste to me). I use it mostly in teas and find it gives a longer lasting sweet flavor than sugar and has none of the chemicals that artificial sweeteners rely on. I suspect that early studies that claimed it acted as a mutagen were attempts by the heavily subsidized US sugar industry to associate stevia with artificial sweeteners like cyclamate and saccharin. Has anyone used it and found any adverse health effects?

I was thinking along those lines too. I would be willing to bet a dollar that many of the sites in NM and TX are fairly close to each other, implying similar ground formation.

Your link is busted and leads to a 404 error.

Assuming that questions can be either true or false is illogical.

I fail to see where minority syndicates could avoid being crushed by majority syndicates in this system. Syndicalism seems like a more organized system of special interest groups, but won't there be some syndicates that dwarf others? And how can that lead away from an economic aristocracy? The accolades go to Peron, not Moontanman, who was only providing background research. Let's not shoot the messenger.

I agree that the banks are trying to decide which of the parties in their pocket will give them the best returns for the future, but I think backing the Reps in this instance seems to favor more of what caused the problem in the first place, while backing the Dems would provide mortgage relief to homeowners/taxpayers and the repayment of loans the banks suckered people into in the first place. I hate this dirty system but in this instance the Dems seem to be helping the people they profess to represent, where the Reps seem to be helping the banks and smearing the Dems.

I think he's referring to the Republicans blocking mortgage relief efforts initiated by the Dems to renegotiate sub-prime loans that had ballooned and threatened foreclosures. It does seem like a direct political attack, since the banks would prefer to have the loans paid off at a fair interest rate rather than going through foreclosure auctions. The Republicans seem willing to further offer the kinds of deregulation and collusive deals that caused problems in the first place rather than let the Dems seem like saviors to at-risk homeowners.

These are anecdotal experiences from people who have no psychiatric training or background. We were asking for the author and source of your original statements regarding psychosis and religion, not some people making claims of studies which they themselves provide no source for. I don't think you can prove that all psychosis has religion as its root cause.

While I support gay marriage, I also support the above views, and I dislike any attempts to marginalize the opinions of others as "irrelevant", "not based in reality", or any of the other phrases or words that cast aspersions on the person rather than addressing their argument. It happens way too often on these boards, imo.

This seems illogical. The benefits we're talking about are things like hospital visitation rights as a family member, and being claimed as family under group insurance. Your scenario discriminates against many loving couples. What's next, you can't be buried side by side unless you have at least four children? Carrying on the species is important but marriage has many other benefits for society, something many here have shown but you refuse to recognize. Right now we have no population control legislation in place, either to increase or decrease the present rates of childbirth. Your scenario is unnecessary right now, and if anything, we may soon need to encourage a decrease in the rates due to limited resources. You "feel marriage should be encouraged for love only" by whom, the state? I thought you said: Look, our society already has a layered system of benefits that extend upward depending on how much you benefit society. As a single taxpayer, you get the basic set, as a married person you get more, if you enlist in the armed forces to defend society you get even more, etc. What the gay community is asking for is to be treated in marriage the way everyone else is. The way you choose to have sex never comes under question with regards to benefits for heterosexuals (who face many of the same health concerns you've been mentioning), nor should it, so why should it for gay people?

Acceptance doesn't mean you have to embrace it yourself. It just means you allow it on a legal level and acknowledge it as a choice. It means not forcing your rigid mindset on the rest of the society. It means realizing that not everyone shares your point of view, experiences and upbringing, and that that doesn't make them any less valuable to society as a whole. Society is strengthened anytime there is a union that provides stability and economy within the parameters of that society. The worth of people is validated by these unions and that keeps people happy, productive and motivated to think beyond themselves alone. If you could see past what you consider an abnormal sex act, I think you'd have to admit that it's better to have more people involved in happy relationships that help society prosper than to deny them the right to form those acknowledged partnerships. Varying values are what keep an economy healthy. If you place a higher value on orange cars, donating to basset hound charities and Stilton cheese than I do, I'm actually glad because I'm never going to be interested in any of those things but I can accept that you are and that the value you place on them will actually help my society (and me, indirectly, because I won't have to buy or support them because of you!). So you don't have to embrace gay culture for it to benefit society, you just have to acknowledge that it's a choice for some people and stop denying that it has validity to parts of the society you live in. This definition fails to include even hetero couples who either can't or choose not to have children. Are they not married in your spiritual meaning? Is one soul less than another just because it didn't reproduce with another?

Sometimes I think if it were only women wanting to marry each other it wouldn't be as big a deal. Most of the objections I hear are with gay men. Women can share a kiss on TV but it's pandemonium when men do it (and they can never put as much gusto into it). Guys who love sex are called studs, women who love sex are called sluts. Guys having sex with guys is disgusting to many, women who have sex with women are... well, hot. And it all seems to boil down to paranoia that the child you pass your estate along to might not be yours. Men can be idiots, really.

I do it all the time. They serve club soda, and it's usually free when I'm with my friends who are drinking alcohol. You mentioned that you wondered why the term marriage should be limited to humans. Do you consider gay people not human? Let's get some perspective on this. A second-grader is not going to be taught anything about sex that Mom and Dad wouldn't tell them. Kids that age need simple answers. If they ask what gay means, teachers wouldn't launch into graphic descriptions about anal sex. The rest of your post sounds like you support discriminative practices because acceptance of someone else's lifestyle is beyond what you are prepared to do. Which behaviors do you find unacceptable that a second-grader would be exposed to? Remember that all of us here are probably going to object to sexual activity from anyone in front of a 7-year-old.

Insufficiently, imo. Why would allowing gay marriage automatically lead to teaching a pro-stance about anal sex in schools? Are you arguing for marriage for non-humans? Even if the subject was taught as part of an alternative lifestyle course, it would neither require children to participate in anal sex nor encourage them to do so, and it might possibly educate them in the potential health hazards, which is done for vaginal sex in all health classes now anyway. There are numerous studies showing that education is more effective than abstinence. Because one is science and one is religion. Schools teach science, churches teach religion. K-12 schooling is mandatory and religious classes are optional.

Why does a hetero couple having the types of sex you oppose for health reasons not impact society or children? What is a gay couple "forcing" on anyone by wanting to be married?

Roflcopters. Swansont wins.

And now you are the victim of Danth's Law. Not to be a Nazi about it.... Classic.

So when we see symmetry and uniformity in nature it must be a higher power acting upon it, and when we see complete randomness with no two objects alike it must be a higher power acting upon it? Is this the same higher power that acts upon the simple and elegant as well as the incredibly complex?

Obviously the benefits are more heavily weighted to those who can take advantage of the compost more readily. In my brief experience with composting, it was pretty cool to get something useful from something I was going to throw away, but it does require a lot of extra time that is hard to justify unless you like gardening a lot. But you've got to be especially careful with food you eat from a garden that uses fecal matter as fertilizer. Sawdust can be flushed through many types of septic systems with no problem, and it's biodegradable as a compost filler, but I too am skeptical about it's odor-absorbing properties. The type of sawdust I generate from weekend carpentry projects would present an airborne particulate problem as well. I suppose if you had some rougher sawdust from a sawmill it might not create a dust problem, but without added chemicals I don't think it would deodorize most human feces. Some people, of course, wouldn't need anything because theirs doesn't stink. I was looking forward to that special but not anymore.

If you drink enough tea, you will hyper-hydrate. Maybe that's how drinking tea helps fight cancer.

Where does he get his sawdust from? I can see where having solid matter coated with sawdust might keep the bucket-emptying process more sanitary, but I'm skeptical about it eliminating the odors involved, especially if you're waiting until it's full to empty it.

We lost the food-processing capabilities when we dropped the Schumann Resonance. But it takes phone-quality pictures!

Be persistent with Microsoft. Sometimes I think they use that as a litmus test for piracy. Thieves generally won't spend the time with customer support to protest their innocence. It's quicker for them to try and crack it.