ParanoiA

I like Newt. He's quite a practical, logical thinker really. I think people dislike him for the same reason people dislike any conservative without actually listening to why he thinks what he thinks. He's been hard on the administration on several issues so I'm not sure how much the party will embrace him.

And he's not a people person. I like his almost geek like disposition to government and philosophy. But I've seen my pop culture driven countrymen dismiss great candidates for completely asinine, irrelevant trivia far too many times to believe he'd make it through the primaries.

Clinton wiped the floor with him. He was sincere and passionate without being aggressive, countered Wallace point for point (despite Wallace's attempts to stop him) and showed what a load of rubbish the ABC 'special' really was.

 

I wish he was still President rather than GW.

He didn't wipe the floor with anything other than maybe his own ass. He was asked a question and he got bent out of shape about it because he hasn't had the media exposure or relevance to counter these issues that have come into the limelight recently.

I certainly don't blame him and I've always liked him better when he gets in the substance of debate. But come on, he's just as bought and paid for as GWB. They call him slick willy for a reason. My memory is bad, but it isn't that bad.

So what's your take on Wallace? Did he attempt a conservative "hack job" on Clinton, or did he simply ask the kinds of questions which were on any conservative's mind after watching The Path To 9/11, even if he disputed its factual accuracy?

Neither. He asked the kinds of questions you ask when you get the former president of the united states to do an interview for you. This is what reporters do. This is what we tune in for when watching the news. When a movie like The Path to 9/11 comes out and reminds everyone that Clinton dropped the ball long before anyone could blame GWB for it, and then you get Clinton in a chair in front of you - you'd better ask him just like you do everybody else.

This is why I don't like hindsight witch hunts. The current administration and all conservatives have had to field these kinds of questions - and delivered far more personally and vindictively in the process. I didn't see any of them lose control of themselves and get pissed off about it. It's interesting watching how the other side reacts when the tables are turned...

But honestly, there are hundreds of people that could have prevented 9/11. Lots of people make mistakes. And if any of those people had any idea this was going to happen, they wouldn't have made those mistakes. If Clinton believed this was going to happen, he would have got him. If GWB thought it was going to happen, he would have killed him before he knew to run.

These people we are so intent on burning at the stake aren't the ones that attacked us. No one knew 9/11 was going to happen. I don't care how much they dramatize it on TV or how many conspiracy theory books you read. It just wasn't part of our reality then. It's just that simple. I wish we would just pick up and move on and quit roasting people to make ourselves feel better.

Just thought I'd clear up what seems to be a bit of confusion. When I say Photo ID, the usual form here is a Driver's Licence.

 

Other forms of ID are acceptable if they show your name and address and are from a recognised institution. Things like a Phone or power bill for example as these are unlikely to be fraudulently obtained in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome of an election. When using these though, there are extra safeguards built into the system.

What if I live in a cardboard box downtown? I shouldn't be required to assimilate to a common lifestyle in order to vote.

I'm having a hard time understanding the multiverse theory. I thought I read some time ago, that the universe as we know it is like two plates moving away from each other, or expanding, set in motion by the big bang...and that they eventually come back together, singularity, and then big bang again..and so on.

Now when I look up information on it, I see no mention of that part. Just dimensions.

I'm wondering if this "expansion" and eventual "collapse" happen at different momentums, creating differences in physics and time. I would think the speed at which the plates move apart and come back together would have an impact on the vacuum within it. Is that true?

Does any of that even make sense? Or did I just dream all this...?

Concering the O/P: That's the reason I've always known as number one. It still matters today. Just before the gulf war everybody seemed to have this mentallity that wars were for history books and there was no real threat to the world - my generation anyway. This is exactly how I see people who say it isn't necessary to keep arms in America to protect ourselves from our government. They're letting the status quo fool them into thinking these steps aren't necessary anymore - that we've "evolved" to the point that these kinds of thoughts are childish and not practical.

There is a lot of war still left in humanity. It's far from over, and every great civilization, so far, has fallen eventually. There's no reason to think we couldn't be fighting a civil war in our own country sometime in the near future.

According to your comments above, you dont really like the way that I reason through "through logical means rather than an internally motivated justification", and so your question to me is literally asking "why should we be logical, in which case you're asking for a logical reason for why people should be logical... in which case, I cant answer that question. Its not that the question "what logical reason should we be logical" has no answer, but that it doesnt need one.

This reminds me of a dog chasing its tail...

And then you answered my question after all, so apparently you understood quite well what I was asking.

But more importantly, you have to think about morality from an objective point of view, because peoples personal wants and desires dont always correspond to whats moral.

I thought that might be your answer. But since morality is a subjective application fabricated by humans for a variety of reasons, you haven't given me a good enough reason to define it by looking through "something else's eyes" rather than my own. What's good for the universe isn't necessarily good for me, and vice versa. So, my ideas of morality are going to differ from someone else's ideas of morality when they're going for an "objective" approach.

After all, Well, sadism benefits sadists from their own point of view, but you probably think that sadists are immoral no matter what they think.

Thank you for making assumptions about my views.

I don't see a moral line with sadists. I'm more of a live and let live kinda guy. I have no interest in judging someone's behavior as long as they're not hurting someone else...that uh, doesn't want to be hurt that is. Most of the things I do for fun are considered immoral by most and drenched in sin.

But even more importantly, you have to realize that just refusing to give moral consideration to non-members of your species, even though they have all of the same feeling and mental characteristics as your species, is just an arbitrary exclusion...

There's nothing arbitrary about drawing the line between the species. It's a quite natural, sensible, meaningful line. I would draw the same line between humans and superior intelligent life as well - and so would that superior lifeform. The universe doesn't revolve around humans, so what makes you think we should extend our goofy ideas beyond ourselves?

Morality is made by and for humans.

Yeah he scares the crap out of me too. Because he's just smooth enough to fool idiots and naive peace lovers. I just see death and hatred in his eyes.

Is this purely a 'theology' forum, because isn't a philosophy forum being implemented into SFN bar any religious undertones ? Sorry if this was already brought up on this thread, I just scanned through.

I have the same question. All of this sounds so tilted to theology rather than a more even handed Philosophy and Religion title. But, perhaps I've missed something obvious and this is for a good reason.

Like I said' date=' you blokes are doing it the hard way. Have a look at this link to wiki. At the top of the page is the Liberal "How to Vote Card". The actual ballot is the green bit in the centre.

 

A preprinted piece of paper with a box next to each candidates name. We take a pencil and number the boxes. (In this case from 1 to 8.) Since we use the Preferential System it would work slightly differently for the US, but in the case of POTUS, there are two or more boxes, just put a cross in the box next to the guy you want to vote for.

 

This system has none of the failings of your current voting systems. It's like the old joke. NASA spent $10 million developing a pen that could write in zero-G, the russians used a pencil. It just seems like you've outsmarted yourselves.[/quote']

 

I like it. And I've always supported the idea of a preferential voting system.

 

As far as requiring photo ID's, I'm not convinced yet. I disagree with just about any voting barriers. It needs to be accurate, but it needs to be accessible to all americans no matter how disenfrachised they may be. It shouldn't cost a penny to vote.

you have to take the point of view of the universe and not just the anthropocentric view, otherwise you validate an ethic that says "we can perform tests on certain races because we just dont care about those races very much

You seem to come from a moral perspective from that of the universe. Your ideas seem to be externally decided through logical means rather than an internally motivated justification. Your arguments are logical and make relative sense, but there's nothing to suggest we should extend our morality to other species. You define morality from the perspective of the universe, while most of us define it internally - from a self interested perspective.

All of the disagreements seem to be the logical ends of these points of view.

So, my question is, why do you think you should be an "objective observer" rather than a "subjective participant"?

There were only two candidates' date=' so the percentages should add up to 100%, yet only in Ohio do they actually seem correct. Where are the missing percentage points? Iowa 2% missing, Nevada 3% missing, New Mexico 3% missing.

 

I mean it's an A or B question, there is no third option. Where are the missing percentages? Could this be Mokele's "People are idiots" factor?[/quote']

 

No, there were at least 3 candidates. Bush, Kerry and Nader. I'm not so sure there wasn't a libertarian candidate also, but I don't remember. I doubt that's why the numbers were off though, because I can't believe Nader would get even that many votes, but it's possible.

Boy, do you blokes do it the hard way.

Australian election steps.

 

1. Go to polling station.

2. Give name and address to Election Official.

3. Get Ballot paper.

4. Go to booth and mark ballot with pencil.

5. Place ballot in box and leave.

 

After the close of voting, the ballot boxes are emptied at the polling station and an AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) employee tallies the votes. They are watched by "Scrutineers", representatives from each party, to ensure a correct tally. The results are then phoned in to the Tally Room where the results are combined and the result announced.

 

As representatives from all parties oversee the count at individual polling stations, the question of rigging just doesn't arise.

One major difference makes this work for australia and not for the US. I believe it's against australian law not to vote. That's not the case in the US, so voter turn out is very low. What does that mean? Well, if half the voters don't turn out and we don't require picture ID, then people can illegaly cast multiple votes by using the names and addresses in step 2 of the absent voters.

I'm all for a paper ballot, counted twice or more for redundancy, with no results until counting is finished - no matter how long it takes.

I think it's pretty obvious from the comments so far, that the politics forum will eventually be moved as well. Or, at least the admins are going to wish it to be. That dividing area between religion versus politics is a bit too gray. They have everything to do with each other in the current climate. I guess we'll see if the new site for P&R will have a Politics forum as well - in that case it will probably work well.

But for this site, I don't see how you could really manage the politics forum as an admin and not get worn out partitioning religious threads from political threads and deal with our moaning and groaning about it.

I guess the sad reality is, that while I'm interested in science and scientists, I really have no business in here. I like to scan through the threads and something will grab my attention ever now and then, but for the most part I have only posted in the P&R and politics forum.

This describes my teens perfectly...

Repeatedly break the law - underage drinking, smoking pot...etc

Display reckless or impulsive behavior - trunk surfing, a ton of other things...

Exhibit persistent irritability and aggressive behavior - well duh...

Repeatedly lie to and manipulate others - another duh...

Be unable to sustain long-term relationships - I don't know a teen that should

Show consistent irresponsibility, such as failing to pay bills or hold a steady job - never had a job more than a month, ruined a great job my dad got for me on his word, mom paid my bills cuz she felt sorry for me...

Abuse alcohol or drugs - ever since 13...

Show little or no remorse for their actions - there's a teen that does show remorse for their actions...I sure as hell never did

That list describes me and every one of my friends I grew up with. What kind of joke is this? If we're all Antisocial Personality Disordered, then maybe it's not such a bad thing. I've got a great job, hot and sweet wife, two wonderful kids and a frig full of beer.

I think the bedwetting, cruelty to animals and pyromania is what stands out. If I were you, I'd take him to a professional, rather than jack around this forum while he continues to terrorize the world around him...

Yeah I'm quite upset about our voting system imperfections. But I'm even more upset at conservatives acting like liberals and demanding we add yet another bureaucracy to the list and start requiring picture ID and issuing "free" ID's to those who don't have a picture ID or DL.

We need to fix this problem, which is largely due to incompetence. Hey, I respect the elderly, but they are usually running the polls and they don't do that great of a job.

There was a guy here in town that bragged on the radio that he has voted in every presidential election since he got out of prison over 20 years ago - when he LOST his voting rights. They have never been reinstated. He said he first did it to see what would happen.

In school' date=' sixth grade social studies class. The teacher had the TV on when I went walked into the classroom. We watched together before the principal got on the PA system and said all teachers should turn off their TV's... Bastard.

 

The teacher then said "He doesn't want us to watch history being made". The next class period the only thing we did was talk the entire time about what was happening/what had happened.[/quote']

 

No kidding, what a jerk-off. I remember witnessing the spaceshuttle blow up on the TV in the lunch room. It was a big deal to gather the students and faculty and watch these kinds of events. There was no hiding the truth that day...

also as oil becomes less feasible hydrogen and other alternatives become more feasible, until their equal and we use the alternatives, then over the next few decades the alternatives go down to the price that oil is today (maybe a bit higher)

Geez, I hope it goes better than that. Big oil has held us back. I'd like to see a faster rollout of these alternatives. Ethanol doesn't help matters any either. Politicians are jumping all over that, gearing up for elections already. I'm going to be spending a lot of time shaking my head...

You know, I'm about as anti-censorship as you can be. But I like the Dove approach. Rather than crying to the government to come up with yet more legislation to control our behavior, they're operating within the framework of our system and organizing to make themselves relevant. Quite democratic.

I'm not getting the oppressive tone from this website at least. Like this quote:

We believe in a positive approach of commending high-quality, wholesome movies rather than condemning filmmakers for not meeting those standards.

That sounds resonable to me. Promotion of good rather than condeming of what they see bad is a much preferred approach, in my opinion.

However, I would be cautious too if they called me with a completely different tone.

And I still see a need to promote non-censorship orgs. Dove is great for their cause, so who do we have for ours?

One list is a complete list of all the cities' date=' the reference. The other is a list of cities (listed by zip code) that [i']should[/i] contain all the cities. I'm trying to make sure it does.

 

I'll look up pivot tables.

Ok, when you use TRUE, this means that you want the closest answer. If you use FALSE, it will only return the exact answer. Most people will tell you to sort both columns ascending. This is required for TRUE, but not for FALSE.

Also, I don't see your return column index value. Try this:

VLOOKUP(B1,A:A,1,FALSE)

This says, do a vertical lookup on the value in cell B1 in the entire column of A. If a match is found, then return that value, if not, then return #N/A.

#N/A is telling you it couldn't find that value, so that would be the same as saying the city name is not in the list, or it's mispelled.

I don't know of any way you could design a function to find mispelled city names.

There is nothing constructive to be done! Whatever the diagnosis of this childs state is. Based on our' date=' (humanities), current level on knowledge of mental defects is too primitive.

 

This youngster and all around him, are doomed to enjoy the experience of terror, lost. Followed by blame, recriminations, accusations, protestations, righteous indignations, self serving useless observations. And then the politicians get involved!

 

When all is said and done, he will be sentence to death and 18 years later, executed.[/quote']

 

You forgot about the movie...you know, the one where we exaggerate all of the violence, censor the sex and bleep the dirty words so we don't mess up the rest of our kids.

What would you do with the information above? Imho' date=' the much more important information is: Where do you live?

 

Availability and structure of social, psychic and psychiatric counseling probably varies over the world and maybe even within a country. And the only useful advice I can imagine coming out of this thread would be something like"go to X, you´ll find the adress on www.xyz.ab".[/quote']

 

Good point. I ask about mom and dad because many mental illnesses are hereditary. Also wanted to know who is responsible for this child. They need to be convinced of his need for help.

Wow, I'm suddenly feeling so much better about my kids...

More information is required. Parents? Mental stability of the mother and father? Who is currently the active caregiver?

This child is going to do something irreversible. It's not a question of if, it's a matter of when. He needs a professional immediately before a tragedy dictates it.

Why censor the movie? Why not let the movie air as-is, then the old Clinton administration can sue for slander and willful misrepresentation? That would be more fun

It would be more fun watching them make fools of themselves bathing in hypocrisy, I agree.

Actually, last night they were harsh on the Bush Administration. I didn't watch all of it, but they were tough on the Clinton Administration on Sunday. Not sure how much they changed, etc.

Well I must have missed all of the good stuff. I was impressed with the part that I watched though. They seemed to be tough on all involved really - at least from the point I started watching it.

I also didn't realize the FBI had that kind of information leading up to the attack and had agents actually focused on UBL. I thought they dismissed him and much of the intelligence surrounding him up til 9/11. If that's true, I'm far more disappointed in my countrymen than I was before.