• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mikee

  1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/thelabbench/2015/03/26/ravens-offensive-lineman-john-urschel-explains-his-mathematics-paper/
  2. I don't think that you have. Sort of almost on your point, I presented my main observation, on the Kim Davis thread. I can't write about Carly till October 20, so I feel stupid opining on the Rowan County schmozzle on this thread. How come? What did I miss? [sorry, short memory and ADD]
  3. Ha! I haven't explored much beyond my .38 and .22 revolvers, not enough recoil to notice The intended use is very short range. Thanks for the lesson. [Hey, I gave you credit for being brilliant...]
  4. Sometimes the unexpected happens. I've had a healthy lifestyle and been very fit almost my whole life. It turns out the high volume endurance exercise I did from my teenage years into my forties is associated with a 5 times greater chance of heart arrhythmia's. At 67 I've now had 3 RF ablations for atrial fibrillation. At ~$100K a pop, I'm glad I had health insurance through my work. I tried all of the natural cures, diet and supplements, breathing exercises and meditation. Paleo diet, fasting, weight loss, ketogenic diet, works for some, not for me. Out of desperation I finally opted f
  5. Brilliant! The gas directed upwards creates a downward force that compensates for the recoil. Did nobody else think of this? Is there a downside? Can you use it with higher caliber pistols? Perhaps the effect is unneeded and barely perceptible with a .22. Do you have a patent? [of course you do!]. Can I tell people I know you? [brilliant and insane are not mutually exclusive, perhaps the contrary...] [do you need a different hole diameter for each bullet weight and charge?]
  6. GOP debate: Carly will beat Trump like a drum...
  7. Things to do while counting down...
  8. So your position is that is it proper for government to be involved in issuing marriage licenses? Humans have a right to have their unions officially recognized, approved and endorsed by government? And those rights extend to all individuals, sexual preferences and viewpoints, regardless of history and tradition? So, in other words, gays, despite not having the power to be granted government licenses in the past, nevertheless had the right, and all government institutions of the past were therefore in violation of those rights? Currently, three or more people cannot receive a government licens
  9. She ordered the clerks in her office not to issue licenses. She violated other peoples rights as a representative of the government. What part of the founding principles of the country do you fail to understand? Freedom of religion doesn't mean a representative of the government imposes their religious belief on others. She was performing actions in violations of others rights, she had the option to step down, no one was forcing her personally to violate other people's rights. She represents the coercive power of government, the people coming to her office were the innocent recipients of
  10. Yeah. His "depends what the meaning of is is" defense. Not buying it. He is a bully who thinks he is smarter than everyone else and can talk himself out of anything. This is what gets his juices flowing, he's been doing it his entire life. Not presidential material in my opinion.
  11. Is this your idea of objective and rational?
  12. Reasonable degree doesn't mean a government official denying a lawful right to a subset of humanity for religious reasons, their own personal Sharia. Davis had options, she chose not to take them, she refused accommodation and went straight to lawless. Apparently you're just trying to pick a fight. You're right, I am emotional: angry. But not irrational. Go for it.
  13. Yes. There is even a "settled" area of law called the "domestic relations exception" to federal jurisdiction: Thanks Adam. Interesting. Does it ever seem the law is convoluted beyond belief? I don't want to get Greg started...but Tower of Babel comes to mind. I purchased a book on the Constitution for my Kindle.
  14. I'm with Marc. Zero chance. My wife hates him already, wait 'til she hears this.
  15. Is the constitution as originally written silent on the institution of marriage?
  16. Mikee: Can you trust me for a few questions and not hear them as an attempt to attack, or, disprove what should be a morally correct position on "same sex marriage" in the State of Kentucky versus say New York? Yes, I trust you Adam. This is a sticky subject however, as I don't believe the government should be involved in private contracts (including marriage) at all except for refereeing the disputes if they are broken.
  17. I really don't understand how this is difficult. A representative of the government has to treat every person they interact with as a representative equally under the law. The law now clearly states any couple regardless of sexual orientation is entitled under the law to get a marriage license. Kim Davis not only would not comply personally but she ordered others in her office to deny marriage licenses as well, forcing them to comply with her personal religious beliefs, as if her office represented an official state religion. She could easily follow her conscience and resign her position o
  18. Well... it's a little early. Not Trump. Disappointed in Cruz re the Kim Davis issue. I think respecting someones religious beliefs stops when they are infringing other people's rights as an officer of the government, I would think someone steeped in the founding principles and the constitution would come to that conclusion. She protects her conscience and her oath of office by resigning. I can't respect who won't speak up on the side of individualism against misuse of government power on this issue. I guess Graham. Maybe Steve Forbes could be drafted...
  19. Carly Fiorina gaining on Trump "“More awareness of stronger candidates like Carly Fiorina,” said talk-show host and former presidential candidate Herman Cain. “She’s moved up and rightly so.”"
  20. It appears Hillary is being thrown under the bus...slooooowly. Perhaps a distraction from other greater wrongs.
  21. You call the author a racist. This is a convenient way to dismiss everything he says and not think about or discuss them. But cultural habits and ideas and the preservation of western culture and ideas are the subjects of his articles, not race as in genetic inheritance. The terms racism and racist are too broadly defined and applied too liberally I'm afraid in order to dismiss what some well meaning (though perhaps very angry) people are trying to say. I would be more impressed if you addressed individual issues point by point in the article (there must have been some reason you read it).