JustinW

Welcome back Phi, What type of regs are you talking about here? Any kind? Or a new kind that is put in place to check a corps power? I think it is also important to remember that a corporation is made up of everyday average workers, so some of that arguement may be valid when it comes to their jobs.

I'm sorry iNow, I don't think you quite answered the question here. All you've said here is pretty much a longer version of what you said already. You've just stated that it was old and didn't meet with our current situations. I was hoping to gain some insight as to what situations it was too outdated to apply to. You also mention free speech, guns, and privacy as previous principles. Huh? I would say those principles hold as true today as they did then. I don't believe the constitution kicked off a revolution. I believe it was the outcome and solution to the cause of revolution.You also say that the laws have some profound components, but are lacking in some proficient ways. Laws can be mandated without a conventional rewrite. If they have missed aspect of modern day life in the constitution that we haven't already covered in amendments, I would like to know what people think who say that the constitution is outdated. And also maybe your thoughts on what benifits a well designed update might provide that the outdated version doesn't. I didn't mean to imply that they were socialist, just leaning to provide social programs. Even though alot use the term social justice.

Thanks for the explanation guenter.

Hello Phi, I was reading through here and wondered what policies affect other countries? And I'm willing to bet that it would either have to do with money or military. Both would have to be taken into great concideration as to our position of strength and stability.And forgive me for asking this in two different threads. It was touched on in both. What is it about our constitution that needs to be updated? Or what goals need to be redirected? I keep hearing this but no one ever says why.

Yes this too was what I meant. I thought somehow that the "prior" was automattically implied. Poor ASSumption I made for myself. Although this aspect of this was certainly intertaining. Could you imagine making Biden do 100 push-ups every morning. It might curb the foul language on public TV.(well..a little anyway)

Hello, I may be getting off topic with a couple of questions here and if so let me know and I'll stop. What exactly is it about our constitution that seems outdated? What is it that needs to be added or taken to make the document more up to par? The reason I ask is that I've heard this on several occasions but have never heard why. Another question is, if the representatives that could be concidered sociallist leaning politically aren't the problem, then why are they normally the one's pushing for programs that are unsastainable? It seems if this is the case, then DoG had a point. Although the programs are good in intention, if they are unsastainable, then those programs are (at the time) bad for the country and shouldn't be pushed. Inturn that would ideally make the representative a bad one.

What would be the ups or downs to having a polling booth in every American post office. When new policies are brought to the table at least the publics opinion could be accessable to a degree more specific than general polls. The polling machine would record drivers license numbers. That way nobody gets counted more than they should and it would automatically tell what district you are allowed to vote in. I know there are probably some down falls to this.

Being from Texas I think it might be against the law if someone didn't like Willie or Kris. That Highwaymen tour was one of the greats. As for polititions I would have to agree that they should serve the country in a way that puts their lives on the line. It might give them a better appreciation for how this country was built and what it takes to keep it safe.

Just out of curiousity, why do you think this: What liberty violations did it miss? I'm not sure I understand this.

I don't see how that is too much different from what I said here in post #27. After reading back through the posts, I think we are agreeing on the basic principles. It's just the details I think I'm getting mixed up on. Looking at it from a strict scientific point of view I think you are correct in saying that a creator is irrelevant. But where I think I got off track was when we were talking about agnostisism and I incorporated the scientific method to view reality along with a belief of a creator. The posts I have posted since then have had these two things in mind, both incorporated together but taken seperately. Edited for afterthought.

Thanks for the correction michel, I have since learned the errors of my ways. I would hate to implant any misconceptions. I believe I was also corrected by Swansont on the same day for the same thing, if my memory is correct. It must have been a bad day for my brain. I think this might have answered the question that was bouncing around in my empty skull at the time.

Sorry guenter, I was away for awhile. I didn't necessarily mean decay. I was wondering if the wave was somehow less effective over time. Therefore being less detectable.

Ah, it just goes to show why I never understood why people get there information from these types of shows. These types of shows have no legal obligation to tell the truth. Moral obligation might be a better way to look at it, but that still doesn't stop the disimformation. And if we were to pass a law that goes against the free speech amendmant, could we even regulate a show that can classify themselves as entertainment? I could see where the comical part of televised entertainment might see some reprecussions off of something like that. Given some more thought I believe these questions are just as irrelevant. I think what would be more to the point would be which ones and why?

You're the one that said it could. You won't even give me a hint? I've just tried to look up some information on measuring thoughts. As far as I've found there isn't any way to measure individual thought. I concede. Under those terms I stand corrected. So the arguement as it stands now is that a creator or even the possibility of an afterlife cannot possibly exist because there is nothing measureable to observe? Although when existance is pointed out the creation of that existance is still irrelevant for the same reasons? Edited for afterthought.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2201 Although it is 2003 when this article was written, it should provide you with quite a bit of information. I was a little surprised to see that only a little over 11% of the Earth was protected. I had always imagined it would be a greater figure.

Hows that? I understand you can measure brain activity, but I've never heard anyone say that it was for sure measuring thought. Okay how big was your last thought? Maybe irrelevant to reality of the measurable but still relevant to the individual. Maybe the individual has some notion of an afterlife. Just because it is irrelevant from a scientific methodology doesn't mean that it is irrelevant alltogether.

Even though they don't advertise as entertainment based programs it is a given that they are driven by ratings.

So reality is just what is measurable. You can't measure a thought, but you know you had one. It doesn't matter though, because I had no intention of connecting the scientific method with finding the proof of a creator. I was trying to say that the scientific method could be used to debunk certain religions and beliefs, but that it couldn't debunk the idea of a creator. Someone might that by definition you measure a creator everyday with any thing that's measured. Therefore a creator cannot be ruled out by default. And you may have me on that last point.

I was reffering more to slander and propaganda. But even then I don't watch too many personal op news programs and couldn't give an opinion of who missuses or misleads when it comes to talking the facts. You would think that a fact is a fact nomatter who is saying it. Now where that fact came from and where the eventual outcome of the situation is going could be mislead. But I was reffering more to opinional bias rather than factual bias. Yes one could assume who would be the first to take exception of the current administrations actions (when they act). This all has to do again with what side are the political winds blowing at the time. If the left is in office and doing a bad job it would be safe to assume that the political winds are going to shift to the right. Same goes for if the right is in office doing a bad job. So you have to expect a general amount of bias in the media one way or the other. It's only good buisness to follow public opinion. And on a second thought I don't see why anybody would get their political or factual information from an entertainment show. Sure they may be talking politics and laying things out as fact, but everyone also needs to understand that these shows are here for entertainment purposes no matter how they spin themselves. And that goes for all the shows that you listed.

It still doesn't explain the red shifts. And even considering Boyle's law, we can measure the pressure of space, but no one ever mentions if that pressure is changing one way or the other. And if it is changing, then that should be able to settle the question one way or the other. And if it's not changing, then I would say everyone is crazy and we're all made of silly puddy.

iNow, While I can understand your previous point, I don't necessarily agree with it. I believe the "left" has it's extremes also. To find the extremes on one side you only have to listen to the extremes of the other. As for Fox News, I've heard the same said about MSNBC also. It is all in who you talk to. I've actually heard alot of agruements about the bias that certain networks have toward different ideologies. I've even heard some claim that media has bent popular opinion from one side to the other as strategy for filling political office. And from all I've heard from both sides, that particular person did an awful job once in office. It will be whoevers side extremes are against the rest depending on the political feeling at the time. Then before calling the kettle black, you really might ask yourself if there is a media bias from your own side of the issues. I can't imagine anyone's answer would be no. Now I'm just a little off topic. Whether being of the right or left persuasion you have to imagine that frustration and anger plays a big role in any debate on any subject. But the uncalled-for outbursts that propogate out of thin air or unrational assumptions is the problem of constructive conversations on any platform. It was my idea that it might be attributed to one group or type of person more than another. After giving it some further thought I believe that iNow may have been correct when saying that this type of question couldn't be applyed to general categories.

Exactly. I believe the scientific method to be the correct method when judging reality and the way it works. This, I believe, can also be applyed towards religions and beliefs. But it doesn't exclude the notion or belief of a creator. Logically one has to assume that because there is "something", that it had to be created somehow. So if someone asks me if I believe in a creator I would say I do. As to different definitions of atheism and agnostisism, I would say to those that do not follow the origional straight forward definitions, that they should call themselves something else or be considered non-comfomists.

This is why I mentioned influence instead of control. Partly for some of the same reasons. I didn't imagine a group like this ever coming into existance, so I imbelished on the idea from an imaginary utopian frame of refrence. Well, the OP was that we have to do something. The next question automatically becomes what to do, and is it the right thing to do. So the move was probably inevitable anyway.

I think that's funny. Everything that can't be fully explained has to have anti in front of it. Antivacuum, antigravity, etc...

once you have something physical it is something, once everything physical is out of the equasion then it becomes nothing. Then nothing becomes the entity as it is all there is.