DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
What was the balloon boy scare?
-
I've heard this claim about volcanoes from you a few times and have been rather skeptical of it but too lazy to look it up myself. Do you have any sources for that claim that it released more CO2 than was released by mankind over the last 25 years? I did a little searching and can't seem to find any science to back up your claims.
I did find this though: Climate 411 ยป Do Volcanoes Cause Global Warming? - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund
Care to refute it or post a source for your claim?
-
It's been a good string folks, but I may be able to close it. I just spoke with Palerider, and he's pretty sure that anti-intellectualism is George W. Bush's fault.
Actually I think it's the other way around. George W. Bush is the fault of anti-intellectualism :)
-
Oh no, you misunderstand me. I am not against the concept of such a treaty. Not at all. I have a healthy respect for UN or NATO as a governing body (I can explain if you need me to but it has nothing to do with global warming). But, like the Federal government, I believe they have their role and the States have theirs.
I am against drastic measures based on un-proven science though. And I am against competitive disadvantage using said science as an excuse.
I think we're in agreement on this then.
-
I'm amazed the world survived the Cold War. The more that is leaked and becomes declassified, the more it seems we narrowly avoided armageddon.
-
You make good points. I agree that the addition of human footprint could contribute. It is worth looking into. But, the Kyoto treaty is not "looking into" it. And surely politicizing it is not "looking into" it either. Drastic government action based on un-proven science is just bad policy. Because, after all is said and done, you could wipe out all the industries in the planet and you could still end up harvesting rice in Antarctica.
Unfortunately, a lot of people buy into the scare tactics without thoroughly thinking it through.
I have not looked in to the Kyoto treaty in depth, but from what you posted it sounds like another worthless political move. I disagree with your presumed stance against even the concept of such a treaty though. As technology increases, the actions of a society are having more and more of an impact on the world, not just the particular piece of land claimed by a country.
-
My opinion:
1.) I can believe that the Earth is undergoing a global climate change. This has happened many times in the history of the Earth, therefore, there is no reason why it couldn't happen again. Therefore, when some scientist tells me Global Warming is happening, I say, yep, that could very well be.
2.) I cannot believe that the main cause of such a change is the carbon waste released into the atmosphere by man-made machinery. The reason I do not believe this is because the Earth underwent climate changes in it's history without the benefit of man-made machinery. Also, nature produces much more carbon waste than all of man-made machinery combined. Therefore, when Al Gore or the President of the United States says Arctic ice is melting because of Boston or China, I have no other option but to look at the political motivation of such a statement.
Climate change has happened over many times in the course of Earth's history, but that does not mean it is impossible for the current changes to be influenced by man. I'm certainly not saying it is proved or even likely that we are heavily influencing the climate change, but I do think your logic is flawed. While it's true nature produces much more carbon waste than we do, is it not possible that the combined natural carbon waste, plus our "artificial" carbon waste is accelerating the normal process of climate change?
I'd also like to point out that while climate change is a "natural" part of the earth, so are the mass extinctions that go along with it. While human technology has come a long way, we are still very much reliant on the environment remaining relatively constant and while massive climate change would probably not wipe us out all together, it is certainly not something we would want to hasten if possible and I think it is definitely worth looking in to.
-
That was TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who was that singing??? I think the only thing worse than that singing was Roseanne's rendition in 1990 at the Padre's stadium.
Okay, about the hand-to-the-heart thing. That's kinda odd. I do stand when the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance is said. I do not put my hand on my heart though, because it's saluting the flag (yes, it's a from of salute) and I'm not American. I cannot salute the American Flag for obvious reasons. I sing it though, because I just love that song. I stand up for it out of respect for this country. I stand up for the pledge as well but I can't say the pledge - same thing, I'm not American, so I cannot pledge my allegiance to the US. I have had to explain this several times to the kids in my sons' school. So, I know kids pay attention to that stuff.
So, for Obama not to put his hand on his heart, it sends a message. I mean, okay, so he doesn't feel it necessary. But, what's the harm of doing it anyway even if you're just trying to portray an image? Isn't he big on image? It just seems wierd to me.
I would agree that it's rather odd and probably a bad move. Aside from that, I think some people are reading too much into it (as they do with just about everything Obama related).
-
I don't think religion is a force for anything except getting people to conform to a particular viewpoint.
-
Does anyone else find our income tax structure confusing, unfair and ridiculous? We have a progressive tax system that increases as your income increases. The lowest rate currently is 10% (soon to increase to 15% when the Bush tax cuts sunset, Obama's first major tax increase!).
In the tax code is woven loop holes. Ways to avoid paying taxes or more aptly, ways to keep more of the money that you earn. Other than child credits and standard deductions you can claim" itemized deductions". There are SO many deductions available that most tax paying citizens don't have any idea that they are available or how to claim them.
So, why not reform the tax code? Make it easier for everyone? I am all for paying taxes.......a fair amount and for appropriate use by the government ( just wish we could stop the waste). I am for a FAIR tax. A consumption tax.........you earn $75K, you take home $75K. You pay your taxes at the time of purchase. This would force people out of the shadows, no more under the table money, drug dealers would have to pay, etc. I would also be in favor of a flat tax, but then you would get right back in to the thick of it with deductions.
My wife and I are self employed and we are also incorporated. We don't take nearly the deductions that we should. I have recently discovered that I overpaid the government in 2006 and 2008 close to $30k. Think they want to give it back??????
After skimming the Wikipedia page on consumption tax, a few things stand out. It sounds like it is inherently a regressive tax (opposite of progressive tax) since poorer people pay spend proportionally more on their income on consumables.
Also, I'm not clear on whether paying employees would be taxed. If that is the case, you still wouldn't take home $75k since your employer would take his impending taxes into account and pay you much less.
I agree that the current tax system is ridiculously complex and broken and should be completely reformed, but I'm not sure to what.
-
If politicians are warned that their plans will result in a particular course of action, I don't think politicians should try to allay those warnings by just saying "won't happen; won't happen." I'd prefer an honest discussion along the lines of "yeah, probably will happen somewhat; but we will do a), b), and c) to try to control that."
I would prefer that as well, but unfortunately that politician would always lose to the one who spins their plan as nothing but positive, because people don't really want to hear an honest discussion weighing the good and bad parts (yes, every plan has both good and bad), people just want a "solution."
I'll agree to disagree with you here, on both counts. I think the President's intent was pretty clear-cut.
Deal. I'll agree to disagree as well.
And I'll agree to agree with you here, on all counts. :)
At least we can agree on some parts :)
-
I dunno. You could wind up taking a bath on prenatal coverage claims.
Good point! I guess it could be claimed that the children are a results of the preexisting condition of "life", but it's not quite as clear cut. Just to be safe, I'll add a clause that says "By signing, you acknowledge that the aforementioned 'insurance plan' offers no actual coverage to either you or your children and the only service provided is 'peace of mind'"
-
Has anyone noticed that President Obama DOESN"T have a plan for health care reform? Could this be at least part of the growing resistance to this hot potato issue? Why is he so willing to leave it in the hands of those maniacs in Congress?
Seems perfectly reasonable that more people would buy in IF President Obama put forth his own plan with lots of SPECIFIC details including how it will be funded and how he is going to slash wasteful spending to offset the cost, etc, etc,etc.
No, you are not the only one. Since your post is almost verbatim the chatter I hear around the office from those who drink the conservative kool-aid (to use your term), I can assure you that you are not the only one who has "noticed" :)
(In case it wasn't clear, I'm just giving you a hard time. Frankly I'm so tired about hearing about health care reform and Obama, I really don't care one way or the other right now as long as people stop arguing)
-
With all due respect, DigitalShadow, that claim comes apart when you look at how he prefaced the remark:
The impression he is clearly trying to convey is that no, his version of health care reform will not insure illegal immigrants.
Leaving propriety aside for a moment: Semantically, "you lie" may have been too strong. Obama is a wordsmith by profession; he's going to leave himself an excuse that at least his supporters will buy--as he did here, and which excuse has been duly accepted by those already predisposed to believe him.
But a simple cry of "bull****" would have been well on-the-mark.
The plan itself explicitly states that it will not insure illegal immigrants, but obviously some illegal immigrants will abuse the plan to obtain insurance illegally. With all due respect, JAG, no matter what plan or law is made, there will always be people who break or abuse it, are you proposing that politicians should never make the claim that a plan or law would do anything since it is ineffective against those who willingly go against it?
I believe that Obama most likely was only trying to state that the plan says it will not insure illegal immigrants (possibly worded to imply more effectiveness than was due). I also believe that the man who made the outburst misunderstood what Obama meant (possibly colored by an obvious intense dislike for Obama).
In any case, the outburst was inappropriate and he was right to apologize and Obama was right to take the apology. I do think this incident is getting more press coverage than it deserves though.
-
You are going to be raking it in DigitalShadow. First though you are going to have to think up a good lie so the customers dont realize you are going to use that preexisting condition to not pay out.
I'll just bury it in the fine print of the 40 pages of agreements that you have to sign before getting the "coverage".
-
What about complications resulting from undeath?
So in the case of a zombie uprising we would go bankrupt, otherwise we would become very rich. I'll take those odds any day :)
-
If Obama is trying to convince his audience that, as an objective fact, no illegal downloading will happen under his plan, then it is blatantly misleading to say that "People are not allowed to download music that they do not have the rights to".
But Obama is not trying to convince the audience that absolutely no illegal immigrants will be insured by mistake, he is saying that the plan "does not apply" to illegal immigrants which is a true statement. I think he was simply trying to convey that the plan is not designed insure illegal immigrants as well, which I've heard some people claim.
-
I want to make an insurance company. Since life is a "preexisting condition" I will therefore not pay for any complications resulting from it. Anyone want to invest?
-
Just because something is really hard to do, is no reason for a President to get up and tell the country it will be done when in fact it won't be.
The statement Obama made was factual. Is it a "lie" to say "People are not allowed to download music that they do not have the rights to"? While it's true that people do it anyway and it is very hard to stop, that does not mean the are "allowed" to do so.
A more accurate (but still inappropriate) outburst would have been something like "How are you going to enforce that!" but that is not what was said. What was said was the result of a visceral reaction that has become the standard in political disagreements these days, it was not a well thought out retort designed to give deeper insight into the matter.
The outburst was inappropriate and counterproductive to both sides. He was right to apologize and Obama was right to accept the apology.
-
Being non-religious and living in Utah, I know what you mean.
I knew Australia was pretty secular, but I had no idea about Washington. Sounds like a nice place :)
-
What I don't get is how people can be so dumb to just dismiss this stuff and continue on with their lives as if everything is right with the government.
Yeah I know, there is a lot to look at, but most people are "asleep" you cant look with your eyes closed. Ive beentrying ot wake people up but I think that they will catch on too late.
What I don't get is how political disagreements these days have degenerated into little more than name calling.
-
Here's some better advice: get a digital camera. They do that for you
-
I would have NEVER pulled a stunt like that either and my parents never beat me with a belt or anything else for that matter.
-
There are many ways a terrorist could hurt us. A single terrorist could kill 20 million Americans (if they knew what to do) with little more than that which could be found in an average garage. This has been a concern to me that I have discussed with the FBI because I am concerned that if I can figure this out so can a terrorist. It is because we are so vulnerable that I am concerned that so many in this country want to limit those that protect us and give rights and privilege to our enemies whenever and in all cases and circumstances when terrorists are questioned for vital information necessary to keep us safe.
The Traveler
And when the the department of homeland security detains you for an indefinite amount of time accusing you of formulating a terrorist plot when you were only trying to warn them, I hope you are still just as pleased with all the power they have been given in the name of safety :)
An example where science and spiritual experiences don't mix?
in Current Events
Posted
When people lose consciousness (usually by going to sleep at night), they have a wide range of experiences that can feel quite real (usually referred to as dreams).
It seems pretty obvious to me that people who lose consciousness and are near death could also have dream like experiences. It is also no surprise to me that people usually happen to see the edge of whatever afterlife they happen to believe in and give special meaning to the experience since almost dying tends to make people stop and think.