Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Universe Prince

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 244
91
3DHS / Re: on reflection
« on: June 16, 2010, 04:15:46 PM »
I did not claim to have digested anything quickly. This isn't the first time I've encountered the idea that everything is insubstantial or "empty" of inherent existence. I do not agree with that idea. And yes, I do think it amounts to a trick of words. I do (to a degree) get that the idea is supposed to lead to spiritual insight and peace. Perhaps I misunderstand it in some way, but I do not agree with the idea as I have seen it explained.

92
3DHS / Re: on reflection
« on: June 16, 2010, 11:38:24 AM »
Quote from: BSB on June 16, 2010, 12:39:25 AM

"Saying we are like reflections.............................due to a series of conditions................trick of words"

Think so do you?


I said so, didn't I?

Quote from: BSB on June 16, 2010, 12:39:25 AM

Move the moon out further away from the earth and the entire topography of the planet changes. Move it closer and it changes in a different way. Get cancer, a change in conditions, then tell me it's a trick of words. Change just an infinitesimal piece of your DNA and you are a different person.


Yes, changes in conditions make situations different. That hardly makes us all like reflections in water. One could just as easily say that changes in conditions make us like birds or french fries or cancer cells or trees or space travel or relationships, or any of an endless list of things that can change based on conditions. It's cute and pseudo-profound to say we're all like the reflection of the moon on water, but it doesn't actually mean anything. It's a trick of words.

93
3DHS / Re: on reflection
« on: June 16, 2010, 12:10:13 AM »
Quote from: BSB on June 15, 2010, 11:40:45 PM

So, we are a reflection in that we exist due to conditions. We aren't the solid phenomenon that we think we are. We don't exist on our on side only. We exist due to a series of other factors, or conditions. No different then the moons reflection in water.


I don't agree. Our existence is not a trick of light and perception. Therefore we are not reflections. Just as the moon itself is not its reflection in the water. Saying we are like reflections in water because we exist due to a series of conditions, is a cute but largely meaningless trick of words.


94
3DHS / Re: The Roundup Has Begun
« on: June 14, 2010, 04:45:17 PM »
Quote from: AP article posted by Kramer on June 13, 2010, 04:33:30 PM

Deputies were looking for 23 suspects wanted for identity theft, Lee said. Authorities believe one of the suspects was deported three times and has been hired back by Sizzler each time he returned.

The sheriff's office received a tip from a former Sizzler manager who claimed he had been fired for his refusal to hire employees without the proper documents, Lee said.

"This is another example of a case where desperately needed jobs are being occupied by illegal aliens who have disregarded our laws and our borders," Sheriff Joe Arpaio said in the statement.


If the job the immigrant was hired three times to do is so desperately needed, why was it left open for the immigrant to fill three times?


95
3DHS / Re: Huh? When Did This Happen?
« on: June 13, 2010, 02:03:32 PM »
Oops. I forgot, Michael Tee ignores my posts. Someone else tell him.

96
3DHS / Re: Anti-drug war message I guess conservatives won't like
« on: June 13, 2010, 01:48:42 PM »
Quote from: sirs on June 12, 2010, 03:31:31 AM

Why are conservatives not going to like it, again?


I dunno. Ask Bill O'Reilly. I guess because the ad had George Soros in it, and also Sting, who, as Megyn Kelly pointed out, isn't even an American. Plus, you know, drugs are bad. Megyn said so.

97
3DHS / Re: Huh? When Did This Happen?
« on: June 13, 2010, 01:46:48 PM »
What the Supreme Court ruled is that your right to remain silent does not mean that remaining silent is a clear expression of choosing to exercise the right to remain silent. Apparently now one has to say out loud something to the effect of "I choose to remain silent," or, "I choose to exercise my Miranda rights." It's a really stupid ruling, imo.

98
3DHS / Anti-drug war message I guess conservatives won't like
« on: June 11, 2010, 11:21:00 PM »
Sting, Soros, Montel and More: We are the Drug Policy Alliance.mp4

http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/11/sting-cant-be-right-about-the
         A rainforest-saving rock star condemning drug prohibition and endorsing an organization funded by leftish billionaire George Soros was an irresistible target for Bill O'Reilly. Last night the professionally indignant populist, whose passionate support for the war on drugs has not driven him to learn much of anything about it, mocked Sting with assistance from Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. O'Reilly, who apparently has not read John Stuart Mill, began by using his favorite drug-related factoid to rebut Sting's support for individual autonomy:

      O'Reilly: You know what galls me about this? Sting [affecting an effete British accent]: "We have sovereignty over our own bodies." Seventy percent of child abuse and neglect in this country is substance abuse driven, most of it narcotics.

Kelly: Exactly right. They actually say it could be even higher than that. It could be as much as 80 percent.

O'Reilly: You know, what do you have to say about that, Sting? How about the rain forest, putting that aside and looking at child abuse once in a while? Ooh.		      

Far be it from me to contradict what "they" say, but O'Reilly and Kelly seem to have pulled these numbers out of their asses. According to Childabuse.com, "Among confirmed cases of child maltreatment, 40% involve the use of alcohol or other drugs." According to Childhelp USA, "Nearly one-half of substantiated cases of child neglect and abuse are associated with parental alcohol or drug abuse." According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, "Substance abuse may be a contributing factor for between one-third and two-thirds of maltreated children in the child welfare system." Furthermore, these estimates refer to "substance abuse" generally, the vast majority of it involving alcohol, not "narcotics." Finally, the causal interpretation of these associations remains controversial, so O'Reilly's assumption that more drug use means more child abuse is unsubstantiated.

More fun with fake numbers:

      O'Reilly: The reason we have a war on drugs is to protect people from people who get intoxicated and do terrible, terrible things. We have alcohol, that's legal. You don’t compound the problem.

Kelly: But cocaine is not the same thing as alcohol. [You have a] 75 percent addiction rate on people who try cocaine and 10 percent on alcohol.		      

A 1994 study (PDF), based on data from the National Comorbidity Survey, estimated that 17 percent of cocaine users qualify for a diagnosis of "substance dependence" at some point in their lives, suggesting that Kelly is off by a factor of more than four. The same data indicate a lifetime addiction rate of 15 percent for alcohol. Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also indicate that addiction rates for alcohol and cocaine are similar.		         

99
3DHS / Re: Daniel Ellsberg: "Obama Deceives the Public"
« on: June 11, 2010, 04:58:36 PM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on June 11, 2010, 12:37:46 AM

Maybe Rand Paul will run as a Libertarian.


Not gonna happen.

100
3DHS / Re: Minneapolis' bike-sharing program launches with high enthusiasm.
« on: June 11, 2010, 04:57:18 PM »
http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/09/my-other-bike-is-a-public-tran

http://reason.com/blog/2009/08/03/tragedie-des-biens-communs

101
3DHS / my nomination for quote of the week
« on: June 10, 2010, 05:07:15 PM »
From senior editor at Reason magazine Radley Balko:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/10/the-latest-in-pants-wetting-an
         In a display of unified, bipartisan dimwittery, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) are joining together to ban prepaid cell phones. Because an inept terrorist once used one in a failed plot.

If only we could get a terrorist to use a reactionary, grandstanding politician in some future plot. Maybe the government would finally ban those, too. Or at least no longer allow them on airplanes.		         

102
3DHS / "Once a government pet, BP now a capitalist tool."
« on: June 09, 2010, 04:49:59 PM »
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/Once-a-government-pet-BP-now-a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html
         But the Kerry-BP alliance for an energy bill that included a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases pokes a hole in a favorite claim of President Obama and his allies in the media — that BP’s lobbyists have fought fiercely to be left alone. Lobbying records show that BP is no free-market crusader, but instead a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.

Now that BP’s oil rig has caused the biggest environmental disaster in American history, the Left is pulling the same bogus trick it did with Enron and AIG: Whenever a company earns universal ire, declare it the poster boy for the free market.

As Democrats fight to advance climate change policies, they are resorting to the misleading tactics they used in their health care and finance efforts: posing as the scourges of the special interests and tarring “reform” opponents as the stooges of big business.

Expect BP to be public enemy No. 1 in the climate debate.

There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

[...]

Elsewhere in the green arena, BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels and solar energy, two products that cannot break even without government support. Lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, is currently financing a BP solar energy project in Argentina.

Ex-Im has also put up taxpayer cash to finance construction of the 1,094-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian Sea to Ceyhan, Turkey—again, profiting BP.		         

103
3DHS / Re: Since BP leak began, Obama has made more trips to the golf course than Louisiana
« on: June 09, 2010, 04:07:57 PM »
Quote from: ChristiansUnited4LessGvt on June 09, 2010, 03:45:40 PM

Since the BP oil leak began, President Obama has made more trips to the golf course than to Louisiana!


So? Him going to Louisiana wouldn't and hasn't accomplished a damn thing. Why should anyone be offended by his visits to the golf course? I wish he spent more time there. He'd spend less time fraking things up elsewhere.

104
3DHS / Re: Ultimate Capitalism: US Companies Fund Taliban to Ensure Need for Services
« on: June 09, 2010, 04:03:28 PM »
I'm not sure what this has to do with capitalism. Kucinich seems complaining about money given by the U.S. government to prop up the government of Afghanistan. That isn't capitalism. The security companies in question are Afghanistan security companies. They are getting money from, and in some cases are founded by, Afghan officials. So it's not U.S. companies funding anything. The "Ultimate Capitalism" assessment is wrong all around.

105
3DHS / Legalizing Away Drug Violence
« on: June 08, 2010, 12:30:38 AM »
Drug legalization advocate and Senior Editor at Reason magazine Jacob Sullum talks to Will Cain of National Review Online about why drugs should be legalized.
Legalizing Away Drug Violence

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 244