Free Republic

What's ironic is that you don't even really think that.

Of course I do. Unlike Thompson I would support a human life amendment and criminalizing abortion while recognizing as a practical matter that neither can be obtained now.

People like you, who aren't that keen on applying the Constitution when doing so doesn't fit your particular personal way of how things should be done?

Uh, no. People like me who think the right to life is more important than federalism. Just like we think abolishing slavery and giving women the vote is more important than federalism.

That’s an interesting line of argument but I don’t think it quite hits the mark. The equivalent question and answer in that context would be “can you accept war and still believe in religion?” and “yes. The common view that war is inherently antireligious is simply false.” The distinction (which I admit is a fine one) is that the a government’s war policy isn’t saying that those who’re opposed to it on religious grounds are wrong, merely that they’re in the minority.

Your post is an execellent apologetic - convincing only to those who want to be convinced. Thompson is the only candidate to whom I’ve contributed but now I’m sorry I did. And the reason he’s sinking in the polls, and is now unlikely to be the nominee, is because there are a lot of people like me.

I didn't think that you would admit the differences between neutron star models and beta plus decay and you clearly won't.

Are you actually so anal as to hold against me that I said beta plus decay when I should have said inverse beta decay or electron capture? OK, fine I was wrong. I will correct it.

Thanks Jason, but what you wrote is entirely theoretical and can’t be observed. ... We see it going the other way (neutron > proton-electron-neutrino), but not that way except in our theories and imaginations.

You're wrong. This happens in so-called inverse beta decay (or electron capture) which is observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

Is that report reliable? And I’m not talking about the potential Israeli-Indian joint action. After all, Israel knocked out the Iraq nuke facility before Hussein could develop his weapons, why not Pakistan too? Makes, and made, total sense to preempt Pakistan developing them too. Too bad it didn’t happen.

Thanks again President Clinton for letting Pakistan get nukes on your watch. That was almost as helpful as Jimmy Carter letting the mullahs take over Iran.

Those are all good questions (to which I don’t have the answers). I’m skeptical of the so-called hydrogen economy too. I was just replying to your point about the power output of the hydrogen generating facility being an important consideration but that slower power can be offset by more generating plant if it’s cheap enough.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of your reply to my post.

However, about that 800 year lag. What's the relevance to today's conditions when CO2 is increasing, not because of warming (as presumably those charts show), but supposedly due to human activity?

If generating 288% more energy takes 288% longer to accomplish, you haven't really made any progress.

You have a good point about power being a consideration, but this point doesn't necessarily follow. If the plant is cheap enough more scale can overcome the lesser power output.

I would love to see the abortion debate shifted to the 14th Amendment

Not trying to pick a fight, but an originalist would say this initiative would not *necessarily* bring that into play. According to that legal philosophy, whatever the framers of that amendment meant by "person" is binding in its interpretation. And if they had a specific conception of personhood that did not include the unborn, this initiative wouldn't prevent abortion on 14th Amendment grounds.

On the other hand, they might have had a more "living" interpretation of personhood, leaving it to the people of each time to decide. I doubt that though.

My point is that, even if the initiaitive passes, it's not a slam dunk even by conservative legal philosophies.

Is there any real possibility of this passing? Colorado seems a very unlikely venue.

There is no error in that statement except a grammatical error (sb “is observed”). If you disagree, spell it out.

You left out “doom’n’gloomers hit hardest.”

Well maybe you did somewhere and I didn't see it, but do poor small-brained me a favor. Provide the explanation in your reply to this post. Tell me why you think the sentence on gravity is context for the fact claim in this sentence.

We see it going the other way neutron > proton-electron-neutrino), but not that way except in our theories and imaginations.

And just so we're perfectly clear, "that way" is proton+electron => neutron+neutrino which we do observe in a form of beta decay (I may have been wrong in calling it beta plus - this particular decay is called "inverse beta decay" or "electron capture." But my point stands, protons and electrons combining to create neutrons observed, just as is postulated in the formation of neutron stars.)

We are not "evolving away" from manufacturing, in a strict sense. We are evolving away from having a large segment of the labor force involved in manufacturing.

I see it slightly differently. We're evolving away from manufacturing being the main economic driver. Both in terms of employment, *and* output, manufacturing will become smaller as a fraction of the national economy. But this is true of the world as well.

And, by the way, I see this as a good thing as I suspect you do too.

Here's a good one from the comments:

Posted by Mike on November 12, 2007 11:46 PM

Declinism? Here we go again. Been there, done that. If I had a nickel for every time over the last 40 years I've heard or seen bloviations about The End of American Hegemony, I'd be as rich as Gates. Let's rewind the tape, shall we?

1968: US cities in flames, MLK RFK shot, Tet Offensive victory magically transformed into Crushing Defeat => The End of American Hegemony.

1973-1975: The American Hegemon reels under presidential scandal, inflation, the end of the gold standard => The End (this time, we REALLY mean it) of US Hegemony.

1979-1980: OK, we're not kidding around this time, this really is the end: stagflation, unemployment, interest rates >18% Japanese increasing market share in manufacturing, humiliation in Iran + Soviet Union on the march =>The End of American Hegemony.

1982-83: Hey, this ain't funny anymore. This is the end, honest: cruise missiles, arms race, SDI, Beirut humiliation, farm crisis, unemployment in the rust belt, A Nation at Risk + The Fate of a Nation => the End of American Hegemony and The Dawn of World War III. Run for the hills!

1990-92: Did I say Soviet Union? I meant Japan! The Japs are coming, and boy, is America ever screwed: Japanese juggernaut's buying up Rock Center and Pebble Beach and has Kidder Peabody, Atari and American Motors in its gunsights. Post Cold War-America's a pitiful musclebound giant, its Hegemony Soon to End.

1999: America, the paper tiger, about to unleash World War III in the Balkans, its hegemony On the Wane.

2007: Hey, did I say Japan? I meant China! End of Hegemony Time, buddy. Get ready, I can feel it in my bones.

Isn't punditry fun?

Everybody is gullible when what they're hearing matches their personal "narrative." It is hard to do otherwise. But we ought to try even if we don't always succeed.

And, by the way, this applies just as much to the anti-AGW True Believers who often post on this site.

I will sleep so much better know they’ve given *copies* of the blueprints for their nuke. Which are totally unaltered of course.

This is absurd. These people are absurd.

Well, yes they're absurd (didn't they refuse to help defend ID in the Dover trial?) but in that particular sentence they have the teensy-weensiest of claims. There are religious people who think evolution can be reconciled with religions and other religious people who disagree. That statement is siding with the former against the latter and so might conceivably put a toe across the SC's neutrality standard.

Better to stick with facts that don't claim truth for one position or another. They might, for example, quote some of the many scientists like Francis Collins who've reconciled evolution with their faith. And then they could quote creationists who say these celebrated scientists just lying to themselves because the Bible must be taken literally.