utabintarbo
-
Posts
252 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by utabintarbo
-
-
So, ahhhh, how about them Lions?
TBH, I think they may be in trouble with the 49ers this Sunday, but what a run it's been so far!
-
Many on this earth are small people with petty souls. Life is sweet when you consort with people of the opposite type. Steve Jobs was one.
Close personal friend of yours?
-
I work in an industry that is dominated by males. Profanity is regularly sprinkled into what otherwise would be considered a normal conversation. To hear someone purposefully avoid the use of profanity would be considered weird (such as one co-worker who is of such a religious bent, that he is described as "not saying 'shit' if he had a mouthful" [bTW, this does not preclude him from using substitutes like "gosh darn"]
).Context is key here. There is nothing intrinsically profane with any word. But how, and in what context, they are used can make them profane.
-
I guess there is another implication/application I have not yet seen here: What about the non-rational human? I don't mean those who choose to be non-rational, but those who can't be rational (mentally impaired, whatever). What are their rights? How is society to deal with such persons?
-
Sorry, I find your post confusing... which person are you addressing?
My bad. I edited the post.
-
The debt ceiling fiasco. Regardless of one's view of the principles involved, blowing up the country is never necessary or justified, and it underscores the t-party's status of a bunch of idiots who don't understand anything more complicated than 3rd grade math.
Insofar as these morons occupy the concept of liberty in the population's minds, the long term cause is damaged. While it's true that other sorts of revolutions operated without regard to human life and suffering, they only did so because they were actually being true to their ultimate principles. You might as well being talking astrophysics to the average t-party member though.
The correct first principles to operate from would have us implement a peaceful and fair move to a free society, not trade-off Armageddon and/or wide-spread inequity and displacement for a slightly faster transition.
OP
Perhaps a bit of 5th grade math (exponents as applied to the idea of compound interest) would lead you, as it has many "Tea Party"-types, to understand that raising the debt ceiling is merely kicking the can down the road. Every additional dollar of debt adds to the pain that this economy will face when the chickens inevitably come home to roost.
Just as A is A, debt will need to be repaid or cleared. This will always entail some pain, but it does not have to mean the collapse of the entire system. Adding to the debt pile increases the odds of that happening.
-
Don't forget this thread for an ass-ton of social contract arguments for and against: My Social Contract Debate
OT, but is an ass-ton similar in size to the oft-used-but-never-quite-fully-defined metric shit-ton?
-
"Doing it wrong" is doing it at all.
-
What a surprise...
What is surprising? The effects, or the admission?
-
The job of any regulator is to find edge cases, no matter how unlikely, and form regulations to prevent these edge cases from happening. That the regulations then create even more edge cases is a feature, not a bug.
-
That depends a great deal on whether government healthcare stays in play.
Abortion I agree is a "wedge" issue. That some old man I never met sees fit to claim ownership over the reproductive organs of every woman in America on the other hand is a very real issue.
Ayn Rand thought it to be a very real issue as well and did not think highly of those who would take away a woman's basic right to her own body:
"The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.
I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?"
In general, I have to agree completely. In fact, my wife is of the same mind with you in such a way that it creeps me out a bit.
And I realize that Ayn Rand was VERY stern on this issue - there are some Q&A's I've heard that fully transmit her feelings on the matter. 
However, Miss Rand died in 1978, and the political context has changed dramatically in such a way a to make lip-service to the anti-abortion crowd no more than just that. I would venture so far as to state categorically that the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned, either de jure or de facto, are effectively nil, no matter who attains the Presidency. The only use for such rhetorical devices now is as a means to mobilize or de-mobilize certain (relatively small) sectors of the electorate. A given candidates position on this (and similar subjects) is effectively meaningless. Pay it no mind, and focus on the stuff that a candidate actually has a chance to achieve.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.
Only difference is- I could end up in a position to find out the hard way whereas you would never be forced to personally suffer the consequences of his stance if elected.
Even if elected, the probability of anybody being "forced to personally suffer the consequences of his stance" fade toward zero. Reagan was even more vehemently pro-life, yet abortion is still legal.
You are taking your eye off the ball here: abortion (along with several others) is a wedge issue that really will have no REAL impact no matter who is elected. Politically, it is effectively meaningless.
-
Whether one is killed in their sleep with poison or blown apart with explosives, the upshot is that you are dead. Dismissing one wrong by pointing at an even more heinous wrong does not make the former "OK". It may be a form of mental triage, but both wrongs remain wrong.
-
-
Up until the "naked machine"/sexual assault parameters came on-line, the procedures were generally just an inconvenience rather than an intrusion. (IMO)
-
This is not a default. It is, in fact, the exact opposite, in that they will merely be unable to borrow further, which at the rate they are going, will all but ensure default.
-
Wow. Grotesque. Although I laughed when I read about Mother Earth's ombudsman who would hear complaints on her behalf.
Ombudsman == priest???
-
Shouldn't this be under "Religion"?
-
Oooh! He can be a chef at a school cafeteria.
"Where's Johnny been lately?"
"Oh, I saw him at lunch."
-
Or child care!
-
A head's up: There's a new smear going 'round today, that Ayn Rand is a hypocrite because she accepted government funds for her cancer under the assumed name "Ann O'Conner," and that the tea party should dump her. Nasty stuff.
FWIW, I had a bit of a "debate" with a friend when he posted a story on this. It basically came down to he had no real idea what her position was on the matter to which he was declaring hypocrisy. We went round a bit, then he admitted he was just trolling. The story itself was along the same vein, but it gave all the asshats a chance to smear her in the comment section. Here is the link to the original story.
-
They appear to be setting up a rationale for explaining how other climate-change events occurred despite having very few humans to blame. This way, they can come up with a (barely) plausible explanation for "anomalies" in their model, such as the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. It seems like an attempt to preserve the "A" in AGW.
-
Friend, you might not have sex with her, but - if you`re really a heterosexual male - you would feel atracted to her. Atraction is a biological response.
Not every male thinks with, or is controlled by, their "second brain". It appears you are looking for a rationalization of just such behavior.
-
That's not what the regulation was intended for.
P'shaw, you can't possibly think they are interpreting this regulation in such a way as to carry out some agenda, do you?
Say it ain't so!
NFL 2011
in Recreation and The Good Life
Posted
I think the major reason for the upswing is that they are making good adjustments, particularly at Halftime. This is a new thing for the Lions (at least since Wayne Fontes).
And FWIW (and a bit OT), this is the same case for the UofM Wolverines.