iNow

I'll take a different tack. I'll concede that there are great similarities in the people who wanted "Bush to fail" and the people who want "Obama to fail." I thinks it fair to say that these comments are just short-hand for "I don't like their particular set of policies," not some bigger "I hate America and it's president" insinuation. I didn't care much for many of Bush's policies, but I had the intellectual fortitude to express my distaste specifically on those policies. I did not cast some large, all encompassing, generalizing net out of laziness and just say, "I want Bush to fail." I said, "I want policy X to fail for reasons A,B,&C," or "I disagree with policy Y due to D,F,&G." So, when someone says, "I want Obama to fail," I think it IS exactly the same as when someone said it about Bush. I just find it lazy, and so non-specific as to be completely irrelevant and non-troublesome. Personally though, I don't tend to get worked up when idiots say that they want Obama to fail. That's their opinion, and they're welcome to it. I'm not going to sit here and suggest that their saying it is in any way different from when people said it about Bush, I'm just going to suggest that both approaches lack academic integrity and specificity, and so can be disregarded. I really don't understand the outrage on that comment. Out of all the things that Rush and these others say on a daily basis, that's what we're going to express moral outrage over? Seriously? It's as if your son raped a girl in school, but you're going to instead punish him for not cleaning the dishes after breakfast and leave the far more egregious act to be ignored.

And that would be precisely why I didn't respond. I didn't care enough to waste my time on this particular thread.

Sure, I'd love some. Thanks!

Again, sorry... No. The speed of light is invariant, but thanks for playing.

And I've also read Origin from cover to cover. Did it on a road trip with my mom and step dad when I was about 17. I also want to be clear that after 12 weeks I still don't think it should be illegal to abort the fetus, only that it be discouraged and based on circumstances. I feel that it's still up to the woman and the doctor to make that final and emotionally difficult decision, even post 12 weeks.

I take Irish Whiskey in my black coffee, and I found him to be a bit like a kindergarden teacher talking down in a condescending way to the US citizenry. I think, Pangloss, that you'll find a growing consensus that our people are tired of being approached like children, and that those who enjoy/appreciate that approach are becoming increasingly marginalized.

Actually, no, it hasn't. You are confusing the results of the actual experiment, and mixing reference frames. The light traveling through the materials in those experiments is absorbed and reabsorbed continually, and it's the absorption time and re-emission time that makes it appear to slow down from the frame of reference of the observer. However, the light itself is still moving at a constant velocity of c. When you account for absorption and emission times, and ensure you are not mixing reference frames, you will see that light has not been "made to slow down or freeze in real experiements."

I prospose "Punch a spammer in the kidneys and kick him in the testicles" day.

What a very simple and straight forward way to make this concept more accessible. Thank you for sharing that. I'll be storing that one in the back of my mind for future use.

People should recall that the surface area of solar panels are already tweaked to reflect light toward the collector cells. It's at a rather tiny scale, so not the same as a large focussing mirror, but focussing still occurs all the same.

It's FOX. I don't trust it. I want to see the questions. I want to see the population demographics. I want to see their methods of polling. It's Fox, and I don't trust it. It's simply a well-timed article, probably mostly fiction, to assuage the outcry of Rush Limbaughs disgusting approach to politics.

Before 2000 relative to whom? Implicit in your sentence is your continued belief in some absolute frame of reference, some absolute time. There's not. So, "occurred before 2000" in which reference frame?

I, too, have read the bible cover to cover, but that's not really all that relevant to the actual question posed in the OP. I'd give it until about the 12th week, since this is when EEG movements occur. Any neural activity prior to that is generally originated in the spine, or is at least more reflexive responses to growing synaptic connections. 12 weeks is also roughly when the fetus begins drinking amniotic fluid for hydration and nutrition. That's when one really needs to question the impact to the developing organism within the woman. So, my arbitrary opinion on this is 12 weeks and prior = ok. After 12 weeks to be highly discouraged, but contingent on actual circumstances. One caveat, there are a great number of 6-12 year olds that I wish had been aborted, and I frequently find myself willing to assist in a post-natal termination of some of those booger eating mutants I see at the mall.

I think this is simply a case of perceptual salience, and memorial bias, not evidential of your assertion. I really don't think the data supports your claim. Do you have anything objective to support your contention?

I tend to agree with you, yes. It's also probably about not lighting any fires that will make it more difficult for him to get the more important stuff done... like environment and health care and economy. It's almost certainly a maneuver more than an ideology being witnessed here.

I understand your position. Thanks for taking a moment to clarify it again. Now, does anyone have any thoughts as to how the California Supreme Court will respond, and how they might justify either decision they make about the amendment to their constitution banning same sex couples from marrying (aka... Prop 8)?

Mr Skeptic - I apologize for letting my temper get the best of me above. I was way out of line calling you a jackass like I did, as you've posted a number of wonderful replies to this forum, you are someone I respect, and my comments above are below me and nor do you deserve that type of treatment. I am sorry, my friend. I just really struggle to understand your position about this somehow being about the definition of a word, but that happens. As Sayo has reminded everyone, I want this thread to be about Prop 8 and how the courts will rule. I am trying to figure out how we've gone so far away from our founding principels that our only recourse against such a ban staying on the books is whether or not they broke procedure or voilated some rule while doing so. It's a tough question for the courts to address, and I wonder how they can get out of this without inciting an angry mob from either side. I wonder how they will do what's right for the long-term, and how they can do so without violating their power. I wonder what they will do these next ~90 days. Anyway, sorry again for posting with such rage above. This is obviously a topic about which I care deeply, but that's no excuse to poo on my friends like I did. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged In isolation, I would quite agree, however, in context he was grouping same sex marriage with necrophilia. It was this implicit association to which I was reacting. I suppose part of my argument is that the existing laws are fine, and do, in fact, allow two same sex people to wed and be recognized as such by the state. The part with which I'm struggling is why we'd allow those who wish to ban the practice of same sex marriage to be the ones writing new laws... New laws which are polar opposite to the founding principles of our nation... Either way, that's a rabbits hole we've explore more than enough times already, and with the thread on 24 hour suicide watch, we really need to drop that line of discussion. Prop 8 is a specific issue in the courts right now in California. I really have no idea how they are going to rule, and I wonder how either decision will be justified by them... whether they allow Prop 8 to remain or if they overturn it... on what basis could they possibly do either? As I mentioned above, it seems we are relying on a "procedural" based ruling and (please grant me some rhetorical license) whether or not the papers filed were all notarized and dated. It baffles me, but that's what's happening. What possible explanations can the courts use for either a for or against decision? Despite having forfeited my ability to make requests as a result of my uncensored frustration above, I'd truly like this thread to remain open so we can address that particular point. What are the likely explanations the courts will use for either a for or against decision on Prop 8?

So, it's okay to let a black person have all of the rights as a citizen as long as we don't call them citizens... only if we call them "ex-property humans?"

Actually, your own reference suggests otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Constitutionality The constitutional issues most relevant to DOMA are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is concerned with the definition section of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is primarily concerned with the second section of DOMA. A right to marriage -- at least "marriage" defined as one man and one woman -- overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Whether DOMA is an appropriate exercise of this power is disputed. Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds: Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause. The law violates the fundamental right to marriage (including same-sex marriage) under the due process clause. Supporters of DOMA argue that the act is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The only Federal Courts to hear direct challenges to DOMA have agreed with supporters on these points (See: In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004) and Wilson v Ake 18 FLW Fed D 175 (2005)). On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a new Federal Court challenge based on the Equal Protection Clause that does not address the DOMA provision that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.[11][12] The Obama administration did not comment on the lawsuit but reaffirmed its commitment to repeal the law.[13] Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Iowa[14], California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages. DOMA Section 2 is argued to be unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional. Federal courts have been reluctant in the past to compel any state to apply the laws of another state when so doing would contravene its own public policy. The public policy exception has been applied in cases of marriage such as polygamy, miscegenation or consanguinity. Constitutional objections to DOMA might be rendered moot by amendment of the Constitution or by stripping courts of jurisdiction to rule on the case. In response to the growing number of legal and political challenges, some proponents of DOMA have proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The strongest version of a Federal Marriage Amendment would override any possible application of the Full Faith and Credit clause to same-sex partnerships, marriages or civil unions in other states and would permanently prohibit both the federal and state governments from recognizing same-sex unions.[citation needed] It would also prevent any state from legalizing same-sex marriages entered into within the state. Another alternative, endorsed by the 2004 Republican Party political platform, is for Congress to pass a law protecting DOMA from judicial scrutiny. Some have argued that this itself would be unconstitutional.

Mr Skeptic - Other laws we have don't apply to parrots, either. Parrots aren't charged with murder, nor or they charged with theft for stealing a cracker. They are birds, jackass. We're talking about laws related to humans, and you've once again fallen into the slippery-slope fallacy. "Next thing you know, they'll be sodomizing babies!" And, if you think this issue is about a "word," then I find you sorely lacking in both perspective and understanding. I have nothing more to say, as I think that is a ridiculously stupid argument. The only thing you have going for you is that it should not be allowed because that's not the traditional sense in which the word is used. Give me a break. Gay marriages have been going on in the christian church since the 1100s. If you want a traditional definition, I suggest you stop limiting your population sample to the last 200 years and gain some goddamned perspective about human rights and equality. I don't know what else to say on this. What a stupid ****ing argument. "It's about a word. If they just call it a non-marriage partnership, I'll be okay with it, as that way I can keep implicitly grouping them as different from me." I'll back off this thread for a bit. I'm enormously frustrated and disheartened right now, and I don't want to let my passions on this topic ruin the otherwise cordial feel of the board. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Feel free to use the report feature on any assertions you think I've made and failed to support. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Do you not see how you just implicitly referred them in a discriminatory manner by implying they are an "unorthodox" group? To say that you're okay with equal rights, but not use of the word marriage because they are "unorthodox" reaks of hypocrisy. This is yet again a slippery slope argument, anyway. "Next thing we'll want to let people marry goats and sheep! :eek:"

Do you always rely on calls to nationalism to make a point? Why not stick to the facts? Do you realize how arrogant and single-minded you appear when you make comments like "we're the greatest nation on earth," especially when the membership here is international? Those calls to nationalistic pride are part of what's wrong with our system. We focus too much on emotion and not enough on reason.

An interesting read, but since it was written almost 5 years ago, it's hard to use it to gain perspective on the topic being discussed here... namely, Prop 8. I tend to disagree with this assessment. This is about more than whether or not a marriage (and yes, it's a marriage, not a union or whatever other semantic games people wish to play to avoid hurting the feelings of the ignorant)... it's about more than just whether or not the marriage between two people of the same sex should be recognized by the state. As I have argued heavily in this thread and in others, it is about equality and fighting against the institutionalization of bigotry. To attempt to classify this as a mere "recognition" issue or something which can be "obtained on an Indian reservation" really misses the point. Sure, that is of peripheral importance, but the true heart of this battle is in our treatment of people, and whether we're willing to piss on the spirit on which this nation was founded and treat some citizens as second class, restricting them of rights enjoyed by others simnply because their sexual preference is not the majority position. Ergo, it's not really a marriage in any recognizable sense of the word, now is it? To Mr Skeptic - I've repeatedly defeated your position that "both gays and heteros are only allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, so there's no discrimination" argument. That position is truly untenable and silly, and you know it. Simply repeating it doesn't suddenly make it any more relevant to the issues under discussion here. That position is implicitly discriminatory since there is no relevant or secular constitutional reason to allow such a division to continue. If you have nothing new to offer in support of your postion, I will ask that we don't go around in circles around this point YET again. You may as well be saying that those old laws preventing a black person from marrying a white person were not discriminatory because they applied equally to both whites and blacks.

Makes me think of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

If they work for Fox News, then, yes.

You raise a good point about him being one of like three non-white republicans, but despite his academic record, I don't hold him in a very positive light. He is governor of Louisiana, a state hit rather hard right now by the recession. Yet, Jindall has repeatedly and vehemently stated that he'd refuse federal stimulus money because he doesn't believe in it. What a tool. On top of that, his statement calls into question his general integrity since, despite his claims of refusing federal funding, and all of the media push he's been doing to demonstrate his larger "fiscal values," when you look at the dollars from the federal governemnt which he's actually going to accept... it turns out to be a full $3.7 out of the $3.8 billion dollars being offered. So, basically, either he's an ideological idiot who'd rather stick to approaches which have repeatedly failed and let the people of his state suffer more than they have already, or he's a liar who will grandstand and self-promote saying one thing, all the while doing the exact opposite. So, in addition to just his failed speech, I think he's more of the same nonsense which has brought down the republican party these last several years... except he's got darker skin. Interesting factoid that's sure to sit well with those in the red states of the country, his real name is not "Bobby," it's "Piyush."