Jump to content

The Bear's Key

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    534
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

409 Beacon of Hope

About The Bear's Key

  • Rank
    Molecule
  1. I've seen people respond with a rule-of-thumb to a big claim that would turn well established theories on their head. Can't remember it though. Something like: incredible/exceptional/unusual claims need incredible/exceptional/unusual proof.
  2. How often does science prove something entirely, conclusively without any direct evidence? (if at all) Can you list any examples? And somewhat related... In the legal world, can a case can be proved entirely with circumstantial evidence? (Also examples if ya got it)
  3. Welcome back ParanoiA. I had been saddened not having you around. Go find a mirror and puke on it. Sometimes we're so obsessed, it's possible to twist the concept of freedom so much we assume wild thoughts/motives onto people and conversations. If you as a parent had sent off your kid flashing huge bills of money, instead of warning them to hide the money from view -- knowing it's unsafe in the neighboring areas -- then you'd share blame for what'd happen. I don't know where you get the idea that the robbers are somehow excused by your irresponsibility deserving a share of
  4. Ha, yeah. Well, there's a good explanation at one website for the visual phenomenon.
  5. That's so cool, Mr Skeptic. My immediate reply to Pangloss is along the same lines. Pangloss, if you walked into a miserably poor area of town, in the evening, with necklaces full of jewels and gold dangling off your shirt, and loads of cash sticking our every pocket, while you counted an impressive stack of $100 bills, then who do you suppose people are going to blame when they hear about you getting robbed/mugged? If they'd blame you, does it mean they're apologists for people who rob or mug innocents? The difference here is that you don't get an honest re-telling by the gover
  6. Unregulated activities by plunderers of natural resources in undeveloped nations, and by foreign policy without oversight. Absolutely correct. But they still will need funds and support. Perhaps even liking a bit of applause. They seem to get it, especially as a result of policies like Bush's. Are you going to ignore the increase of attacks (especially the ones you cited) during the "War on Terror"? Explain how anyone can possibly resolve such a war by force and conflict? Plus are you going to ignore a side effect of declaring a war that's impossible to safely declare end
  7. You mean opinion piece. That link you provided isn't official news. They might be remembering some news of a real event, but just them saying it doesn't make it so.
  8. Your #1 proposal is a decent start for producing effective change. But #2 needs improvement because we need something that'll be easier for citizens to track, and where it's at, it seems open to loopholes and purposeful confusion by lawmakers. Also you need to include tax cuts as well, to be treated as spending. Oh, please. And it's never as black and white as politicians reveal it. $3.3 Trillion Embezzled Before Bailout First see the link above -- spending mostly by the Pentagon; although a smaller organization gets mention as well, but, then if you continue to read o
  9. That's not a good view to begin problem-solving with. The mathematical odds of solving a problem -- and every one is solvable -- increases with each new attempt you give it. But if you don't even bother with it, then your odds of solving the problem approaches zero.* So let's try it again, shall we? If the plan offered a new Amendment to the Constitution requiring all levels of government to inform us of its spending and budgets in real-time -- via internet, email alerts, whatever our fancy -- lots of the waste is gonna vanish and people might enjoy such a level of transparency
  10. No, my point is that the U.S. shouldn't be trapped into letting Company X derail our standards of living. Foreign investments are great, but the U.S. needs to grant its "free" trade privileges with strings attached for cases where "investors" try to undermine our system. And in the present. And in the future, they'll continue to. Something to ask yourself: ever see an ordinary, worker citizen be able to dump mass loads of poison into the environment or contaminate a river's fish with mercury -- escape repercussion by law? Who's more free? Can you state a reason wh
  11. Wake up. You forget Montreal, Colombia, Chicago & New York City (headquarters for campaigns of Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush), El Salvador, Israel, London, U.S. Statue of Liberty, Belgium, Italy, Germany, France, and Kenya. And that's in 1980. There's no "step-up". It's simply a continuation of the symptoms resulting from the unregulated activities by global thieves, who are the first to call for a war on the resulting terror incidents. I say put a stop to both terrorists, AND the unregulated activities of global thieves who inspire such hatred and then hide (from t
  12. It had seemed as if there's ocean behind it, but perhaps not. Difficult to tell. But if the object's really that far, the size is even larger than perceived in the video. Plus, why aren't such trails a more common event -- on the horizon of lands as well? Instead, everyone's response is as if they're seeing it the first time ever. Why? It's a deputy Secretary of Defense who claimed it's a "big" missile. Should be his fault. And what if a real missile had been launched, such as the Delta II rocket nearby to it about four days earlier? Should it have gone unreported if no on
  13. Skeptic; That's not a very good analogy; Normally any person who had an affair or was involved in corruption, whether Christian or Atheist, would not get elected. On a level playing ground, as to character, if an Atheist runs as an Atheist the electorate will choose the non Atheist. But he did make a valid analogy. I believe Mr Skeptic's question is this: if the only two candidates running were 1) a politician exposed for corruption and having an extramarital affair, or 2) a politician of clean record who's atheist.....the voters' choice will be? The answer itself exposes something: it'
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.