Mikee

Members
  • Posts

    1,958
  • 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 for the procedures.
  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 license to group-marry, and therefore their rights are being violated? Isn't that the type of position that you're taking? J No. I agree with you that the government should have no role in the issuing of marriage licenses. But they do have a role in protecting contractual relationships between people. Unfortunately social engineering has historically applied to marriage, benefits given if people choose acceptable (to the majority) lifestyles and relationships. Fine for the majority, the equivalent of second class citizenship for others. Not merely inconvenienced but denied rights of inheritance, visitation rights, partner privileges of all kinds taken for granted by those with the "right" lifestyle. The Muslim religion calls second class citizens (non-Muslims) dhimmi. The correct solution would be for the government to just step out of the social engineering business and let people design their own lives and associate with whom they please. But a great many legal relationships between people are governed by whether or not they are married and previously gay relationships were not recognized. The Gordian knot of this legal morass is quickly solved by just recognizing a marriage contract between gay people. It doesn't change the relationship between any non-gay partnerships or their own positions of privilege unless they resent others achieving the rights they already enjoy, rights to property, rights to inheritance, tax relief, spousal rights, pride in your relationship with your life's partner. I don't agree with how it was done but once the supreme court ruled it is done.
  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 her lawlessness, their rights matter more than hers in this matter. She is the initiator of force and the rights violator in this case. Her rights have not been violated. You ignore principle, I'm not surprised.
  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 or ask for some other relief but she imposed her beliefs by force on others. How are her rights being ignored? She swore to uphold the laws of the land duly passed and now, oops, changed my mind. What if someone working for the DMV refused to issue drivers licenses to white people because her religious belief taught her that whites were the spawn of the devil? Fine to believe nonsense in your own home, not fine to impose it on others. I believe she has now promised to not interfere and will remain free and will continue the other duties of her position. Problem solved. I'm not surprised you are confused by the concept of individualism.
  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). Though having a cogent conversation about anything seems hopeless given the noise level that invariably arises. I cannot reply again today until this evening soonest.