Mikee

Members
  • Content Count

    1,958
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mikee

  1. 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.

  2. 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?]

  3. 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.

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. Actually, I just saw an interview with Trump and Chris Cuomo and, if Carly presses this thing, it might damage her.

    Donald Trump: I wasn't talking about Carly Fiorina's face

    Trump said he was talking about her persona, not her looks. Then he went into a litany of criticism about Fiorina's business and political failures.

    On an emotional level, so far most people haven't given much thought to Carly's past failures. But this outrage thing makes their lower emotional brains wake up and pay attention. At that moment, Trump sticks the knife in her reputation.

    I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any detail right now, or even most. But I am saying this is an effective media technique for undermining the credibility of a competing candidate. (I'm learning some of this stuff just by observing it.)

    It works like this.

    1. Trump publicly explodes a surprising emotional issue that appears like a threat to a typical SJW victim.

    2. The SJW brigade and pundits in general go crazy.

    3. Trump claims there is no threat, that there was a misunderstanding by his accusers. And he gets some notable people to back him up.

    4. While the public's brains are "hot," he throws in a bunch of negative facts about the target that have nothing to do with the perceived threat.

    After the perceived threat dies down and fizzles out, the anchored negative facts and opinions tend to stick. On looking, I see that pattern in the past kerfuffles.

    Michael

    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.

  6. Discussions with Apey Greg are kind of like discussions with Star Trek's Tamarians, only instead of thinking and speaking in metaphors, Apey thinks and speaks in fallacies.

    Tamarians: Darmok and Jallad at Tanagra!

    Apey: If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P!

    J

    darmod_och_jalad_at_tanagra.jpg

    Is this your idea of objective and rational?

  7. 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.

  8. Is the constitution as originally written silent on the institution of marriage?

    Yes.

    There is even a "settled" area of law called the "domestic relations exception" to federal jurisdiction:

    Title 28 of the United States Code grants original jurisdiction to the federal district courts in all civil actions which arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (federal) question jurisdiction) 1 or are between diverse citizens where the matter in controversy exceeds $ 10,000 (diversity jurisdiction). 2 There are, however, two well-estabished, judicially-created exceptions to the grant of diversity jurisdiction. 3 Federal courts view themselves as without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain diversity cases involving probate 4 or domestic relations matters. 5

    This Comment deals exclusively with the domestic relations exception which, simply stated, mandates that federal courts lack jurisdiction to grant divorces, determine alimony or support obligations, or resolve conflicting claims of divorced parents to custody of their children. 6 Even though such a case may satisfy all the requirements of the diversity statute, 7 it must be dismissed --not as a discretionary matter of abstention 8 but because the court has no power to act. 9 .

    The domestic relations exception arose in Supreme Court dictum in 1858. 10 Since that time the federal courts have observed a "hands-off" 11 policy in cases requiring an inquiry into a marital or parent-child relationship. 12 Although the exception first arose in the context of divorce and alimony, 13 federal courts have since applied it to suits involving almost every marital or parental conflict. 14

    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.

  9. The law now clearly states any couple regardless of sexual orientation is entitled under the law to get a marriage license.

    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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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...

  12. If I remember my grammar rightly, the word look is used in this sentence as a transitive verb. The first definition for the transitive verb look given in my American Heritage Dictionary is "To turn one's eyes on."

    Mike, I think that plain meaning fits the author's little piece best. Certainly fits his concern over "white demise." If you were the author of this piece, well I'd certainly be thinking twice about whether the plain surface racism were true to the author's head. But I'm pretty sure you are not the author.

    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.