Scared the crap out of me - didn't know to turn the amplifier down before I pressed play!

Even McCain put the kabosh on the deluded extremists in his party.

ProTip: we'd pay attention if you weren't literally just making this stuff up. We get it, you like republicans more than democrats. You want your guy in the oval office and the democrats want their guy in.

But the whole "The other guy is the devil/like hitler/committing treason/hiding a vast conspiracy" just gets a little old ok? This myth that the other guy is a mustache twirling villain that has a damsel in distress tied to the train tracks is just a tad bit absurd isn't it? We know the news loves it's drama and will amplify anything that is the least bit ratings worthy, but really? Treason? with nothing to back it up? Try harder ok?

There is a whole TWO other branches of government out there responsible for the shit we're in. Yet all the attention goes to the president. If you had actual evidence instead of just slinging accusations around to see what sticks, but you don't. The only thing you're slinging is mud. The worst accusation that the left came up with against Bush was the false justification of the Iraq War. But hey, there's actual evidence to back that up

Take a step back please

Spot on!

>> ^renatojj:

"It seems a small initial clockwise rotation in this body of water is being amplified by gravitational draining and conservation of angular momentum to become a rapid vortex, suggesting a non-inertial frame of reference."
-- Cat

"It seems a small initial clockwise rotation in this body of water is being amplified by gravitational draining and conservation of angular momentum to become a rapid vortex, suggesting a non-inertial frame of reference."

-- Cat

April Fool isn't for 2 more weeks. I call real. Also, if you read the article it's clear that flapping does not equal un-powered. His motions are translated through gyro sensors and amplified through heavy-duty servo motors. Interestingly it seems the gyro sensors are from Nintendo Wii controllers and the processing power is from an Android phone.

I say to thee Icarus; don't fly too close to the sun.

I agree in theory, but in practice I'm not so sure whether the speculators are doing this for rational free market reasons, or if they're specifically trying to drive up gas prices in the hopes of unseating Obama.

I realize I need to put on my tinfoil hat for that theory, but I'm not entirely convinced the supposed galtian supergeniuses running the investment banks are actually fundamentally different from your average teabagger in terms of their motivations and grasp on reality.

>> ^jwray:

All oil speculation is a perfectly legit market reaction to anticipation of future oil shortages. These stockpiles of oil created by speculators will help consumers at some future date when the stockpiles are sold. Prohibiting oil speculation globally is not feasable, and even if it were, it would only delay and amplify the inevitable rise in oil prices as global oil reserves are depleted. Free market speculation that raises the price of oil early will increase the incentive to develop alternatives to finite fossil fuel reserves.

All oil speculation is a perfectly legit market reaction to anticipation of future oil shortages. These stockpiles of oil created by speculators will help consumers at some future date when the stockpiles are sold. Prohibiting oil speculation globally is not feasable, and even if it were, it would only delay and amplify the inevitable rise in oil prices as global oil reserves are depleted. Free market speculation that raises the price of oil early will increase the incentive to develop alternatives to finite fossil fuel reserves.

Yea, I hate to say it, but the left really seems to have no idea how convoluted and potentially dangerous legislating this issue is. Diogenes is on the right track, and even (gasp) GeeSussFreeK gets it. We aren't concerned with whether or not a corporation can hand over billions of dollars to a campaign. That seems relatively straightforward. At issue is whether a corporation can buy a billion dollars worth of advertisements perceived to be supporting a particular candidate or position. Once you put it like that, it seems much dicier. Who decides whether an ad is political if it isn't expressly stated that way? How could we even effectively limit that sort of activity without risking limitations on legitimate political speech? I mean, do we want to tell the Audubon Society they can't run advocacy campaigns in an election year? Or do we just want to tell people they can't donate to the Audubon Society in an election year? See the problem?

The fact is money has always been a factor in amplifying speech. It's one of the reasons Ben Franklin was so powerful (via his control of the presses). However the first amendment was enshrined anyway. Now, I still sympathize with the notion that something is wrong with our political process, and it looks to be something like green paper with president's faces on it. However, a means to effectively fixing it without severe (potentially worse) unintended consequences is still a mystery to me.

Negative chronitom particles ejected at high velocity from phased plasma amplifier interact with low entropy bosons crossing the warp manifold event horizon. These bosons, now drained of trigonometric energy, collide with the gravimetric shielding surrounding the fusion relays thereby inducing oscillations in the ship's hull integrity field, thus producing low frequency oscillations in the ship's artificial atmosphere.

edit: Hm, that was supposed to be in response to raverman. Well, that doesn't make any sense now.

>> ^Zyrxil:

It's the Quantum Calmness Generator installed on all Starfleet ships to promote harmony and wellbeing between Borg attacks.

One of my analog amplifier instructors would draw dotted lines if he didn't have a bit of alchohol in the morning.

We Are The Many

Ye come here, gather 'round the stage
The time has come for us to voice our rage
Against the ones who've trapped us in a cage
To steal from us the value of our wage

From underneath the vestiture of law
The lobbyists at Washington do gnaw
At liberty, the bureaucrats guffaw
And until they are purged, we won't withdraw

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

Our nation was built upon the right
Of every person to improve their plight
But laws of this Republic they rewrite
And now a few own everything in sight

They own it free of liability
They own, but they are not like you and me
Their influence dictates legality
And until they are stopped we are not free

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You enforce your monopolies with guns
While sacrificing our daughters and sons
But certain things belong to everyone
Your thievery has left the people none

So take heed of our notice to redress
We have little to lose, we must confess
Your empty words do leave us unimpressed
A growing number join us in protest

We occupy the streets
We occupy the courts
We occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

You can't divide us into sides
And from our gaze, you cannot hide
Denial serves to amplify
And our allegiance you can't buy

Our government is not for sale
The banks do not deserve a bail
We will not reward those who fail
We will not move till we prevail

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We'll occupy the streets
We'll occupy the courts
We'll occupy the offices of you
Till you do
The bidding of the many, not the few

We are the many
You are the few

Shenanigans are certainly a problem when they crop up. In 2000 it seemed all of it had to do with attempts to not count ballots by valid voters, and none of it to do with people voting under false names, so voter ID wouldn't protect us from that.

But I don't understand your claim that the electoral college lessens the problem of shenanigans, it actually amplifies it. Because a truly massive scale of fraud is required to sway an election by popular vote when there are 100 million voters, but a much smaller scale is needed when it comes down to a few counties in a single swing state.

Honestly, the absolute biggest problem with the electoral college is the fact that entire states are forced to vote as a block. Even if we were to keep the electoral college in place, complete with enhanced voting power for small states, we could still improve it tremendously by just having each state distribute it's electoral votes by the proportion that went to each candidate. Then you still wouldn't see legal battles that could sway entire states, but you would see third party candidates like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader actually pick up some votes.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Anyone that thinks the popular vote is a better system than the electoral college needs to have a serious re-think. Did you like the 2000 election? Hope so, because if you nuke the EC then that's what you'll have EVERY election. There is so much fraud, inaccuracy, abuse, and shenanigans that happen with the popular vote that it is quite impossible - just from simple logistics - to have a clean popular vote. Unless you set up a voter ID system that require photo ID and several other methods to ensure there isn't ballot shenanigans, then it would be a complete fiasco.
The brass tacks are that the federal government has become too powerful. It was never meant to be as big, as expensive, and as influential as it currently is. The primary governance was supposed to be at the state and local level. The electoral college is only important now because the federal government has exploded into a monster that the FFs never envisioned. If you want to fix all this, then cut the federal government across the board by 50%. Butcher it like a hog and return power to the states. Then you can vote in your state and local elections and make a difference, and just elect some pathetic loser to the federal office and ignore them because they have little or no power to do anything.

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?
You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.
One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.
The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.
Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.
At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.




>> ^Quboid:
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.

Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.

How about not bullying anyone?

You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.

One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.

The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.

Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.

At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.








>> ^Quboid:

>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

>> ^shagen454:

Never forget the way America works. Tea Party protests were covered all over the media, the media never spoke of their tinges with racism and homophobia among many other things including being a sell out corporatist movement. They glorified those FOX fried fanatics.
They ignored the OWS movement from day one because they are not interested in investing in this movement because this movement is a direct threat to them. They made them look like idiotic, homeless, hippy bums. Shame on you.

To amplify this point, Nate Silver did some statistical analysis on this very topic, and found that the data backs up what you're saying.

Basically the OWS people only started getting headlines when they got pepper sprayed and arrested.