Cool. And I'm all about saving time. And I don't mean to have a semantic argument; these are real ideas I'm trying to express. In that spirit, I'll just lay it out as concisely as I can.

There was a Creator; it's the only way I can account for the existence of truth. There's also the problem of the origin of the big bang. But I don't believe in magic, so where does that leave me? I believe the creation of the universe was hard work, with no magic involved, probably a truly supreme and ultimate effort, and those raw materials and energy came from somewhere. The only plausible explanation I can come up with, is that it came from God himself. In other words, we live in, and are made out of, the body of God, so to speak.

It logically follows then, that God is dead, and has been for some time. 'Dead' not being entirely accurate, as the universe is alive, and we are alive within it, and I doubt we are the only ones. So, a metamorphosis, as the conversation above explored, is a possible description. Why though? Why would you do such a thing to yourself?

Profit. The only reasonable explanation is that it is an investment. As his 'children' (we are actually child particles of the big bang, and also consider the one common thread of all religions over the history of man; we are the creator's children) the implication is, we are going to grow up someday to be just like him. I guess that means united in love and harmony, with enlightenment and understanding of all things. At which point, you have God, a trillion fold. Or whatever the population of the universe is at the time. *That*, would be worth it.

And that implies to me a few things. First off, it could fail. The whole thing is a gamble. If we kill each other, and don't grow into our potential before the heat death of the universe, then it was kind of all for nothing, and God committed suicide. Also, we are kind of on our own at this point, so the atheists are right in a way. You can't just pray your way out of cause and effect. God is not in a position to help us, even if he can be defined as still existing. Not that he should help us if he could. If he did, then we would simply be kept pets in an aquarium. You can't grow that way; you have to actually be free. Actually it's probably us that are more in a position to help Him (or Them). We would do that, by getting on with the journey, and growing up. We may have until that final entropic event to get it right, but I don't think we have to take that long if we don't want to. :)

Really? You just have to go for the ad hominem a second time? Sort of makes me regret taking the time to respond. But there are others here that don't mind tossing around ideas, even if it's just for fun.

"You say God is eternal? "

No, actually, I didn't.

"Well maybe the universe is eternal too."

Actually, I find the big bang to be rather convenient, almost religious, in fact; and would not be surprised to see mainstream theory swing back someday to a steady state universe. Of course, a lot of new science would have to happen first.

"Yes love and truth are real. They are abstract concepts with physical manifestations."

I'm going to disagree that an abstract concept is a real thing, so I have to take your answer as no, they are not real. And that's an answer, and may very well turn out to be the correct one. As I said, all I have is observation; I can't think of a falsifiable theory or experimental test.

"Are you sure you're a scientist?"

If I'm not, does that make it easier to dismiss the question out of hand? Does the truth of a statement depend on the ignorance level of the speaker? Or does that truth stand on it's own, regardless of who says it?

That's a pretty safe position, knowing that, logically, there can never be rational proof of a creator. If there was a creator, and it created the universe, then he/she/they created 4 dimensional space time, and all the mass/energy in it. Obviously, that means that they exist outside of that 4 dimensional spacetime, and thus, any photons striking your retina, will be unable to provide proof of something they never had a chance to reflect from.

As a scientist, I can accept, as much as my limited intellect will allow, an existence outside the known manifold of our 4 dimensions. Hell, string theorists say there's eleven, even though they look a lot more like dry math than anything that can be visualized.

What I can't accept, though, is a violation of the conservation of energy and mass. Everything comes from something and somewhere, ie; there is no such thing as magic. Even outside of our 4 dimensions, whatever that means; strings or whatever, there is no free lunch.

So now I ask: Is love real? Perhaps you haven't lived long enough to give a good answer to that one; what about truth? Is the truth real? Did I make it up, or was it made up by men long ago? Or is it, rather, a real thing? Whether anyone knows them or not, are there truths out there, waiting, perhaps, to be discovered?

Based on a lifetime of empirical observation, I believe love and truth (among other things) are real. And yet, there is no particle in the standard model for them. There's no ray or wavelength to detect. Very difficult to form a falsifiable hypothesis on things undetectable in 4 dimensional space time. And yet here those things are, right smack in the middle of our universe. They are made out of something, and they came from somewhere, which apparently exists outside, and therefore, 'before', the universe.

As far as weird shit people have said, especially regarding religion, I really can't help you with that. :)

"98% of all marine species went extinct during the Great Dying due to high levels of C02 turning the ocean acidic."

You state that like it's a fact, but it's somewhere between theory and conjecture; it's an assumption based on evidence we just learned how to interpret, that is millions of years old. Based on what we've got to date, yes; it's the best theory going.

But is it enough to tax the fuck out of me, or create artificial carbon credit markets so the government or the rich profit even more off our emissions? I think not. What about the billions of brown people that were just about to get their chance at the energy rich civilization that we take for granted? Not in a million years would we have the moral authority to hold them back like that.

Yes, everything comes down to politics. We could have all the clean electricity we want, and then some, with modern nuclear. That's the only other source of energy stored in the Earth's crust*. I'm talking modern nuclear that can't melt down, with the worst waste being pipes and crap, that are hot for about 300 years, tops.

You're thinking long term? What about the tons of super radioactive waste we have now? It's not going under Yucca Mountain, and no doubt that's for the best. There's only one thing to be done with it: Burn it up in a nuclear reactor. We need a handful of those, and whole bunch of the little safe ones.

Point being, if you love the planet, and hate carbon, then you support (modern) nuclear. If instead, you're just turning your attention to limiting what others can do, then it's likely that you're being tricked and seduced by the socialists. If you're thinking long term, there's no future in socialism either.

Ars has already fallen. Conde Nast, I think?

The quality of discussion there, is far worse than here, pretty much ever since they changed the discussion boards.

Sigh.

In this vertical white space to the left, they could put ads there, and get their money grubbing corporate freak on, and not run us all off.

-- Right here; this inch wide strip.

Or. Maybe they were never interested in running the news for nerds web site in the first place. There's not really a whole lot of nerds, and we're not rich.

So they are going to take it mainstream. There would be no reason to load 300 or 1000 comments; most people are not going to read those, and follow a lengthy discussion, like only we do.

Yet, most of the money doesn't get to stay in pocket. The tower-tester thing actually has to be built. So most of that money is going to wages of construction workers, a good many of whom are black, if that helps. The few crappy low paying jobs they quit to take these 2 year construction gigs now have to raise wages to get decent replacements. Eventually, somebody who couldn't find work before, is now working.

So it does somewhat help the plight of the poor; a good amount while while under construction, some small amount ongoing (assuming they can rent-sell-use it). Real jobs are better than welfare, are they not? At least this federal spending is about 1:1, as far as putting money back into the economy (or as close as you'll get). And injecting the majority of it this way, as wages at the working man's level, well; Democrats should love that.

I've been a deficit hawk for years, and am as conservative as they come. And yet, if given the King's power to axe this one pork program out of thousands, I would hesitate. In just about the poorest part of the country, these are good paying jobs, and they are building something of value, even if NASA doesn't want it anymore. And they did already start it, didn't they?

I'm just saying, that in the sea of wasteful federal spending, this is far from the worst thing going on. But yeah, it's a small part of the overall problem. The only way to get all the pork in line is with leadership, which we haven't had for many years.

Road Rash on N64 was far superior to the PS1. I don't think Goldeneye could have even been done on the PS1. I had both, and the N64 was a lot beefier. Playing the same game on both, the N64 was "better'". True that PS1 had a lot more games, and was overall more successful.

If I was Nintendo, and wanted to stay in this business, I'd go back to the development of the N64, and try to recapture that. Do it right this time, don't be late, only be slightly more expensive than the competition, while being noticeably more powerful. That may turn out to be too hard or expensive to do.

The other choice is to follow Sega. That would make me sad, but were I in charge, I would have to consider carefully throwing all my money into trying to beat today's Sony at building a game console.

"Is it vengeance or is that we simply want these people out of our lives permanently."

Man, this far into the thread and still...

It's deterrence. And that's all.

A victim can be made whole in most crimes. Property and money can be replaced. Even injuries can heal. These sorts of things can, and must, be accepted in a society on some level. Wayward youth, the hungry, the poor, the desperate; they will sometimes commit these acts. It is in society's interest, not to mention simple virtues, such as charity, forgiveness, redemption; to help these people, as we both punish and deter them. Rehabilitation and assistance towards any criminal that shows the slightest inclination for redemption are a couple of the hallmarks of an advanced civilization, to be sure.

But we're not talking about anything like that. There's no hunger, no desperation, no need. There's a predator, who enjoys the suffering of other humans. One who just ignores the primary pact of our civilization: You can't kill us. Not even for good reason. And especially to wait, until we are all engaged, and our backs are turned, and then find the most helpless and vulnerable of us, all alone, and inflict suffering, torture, rape, and kill us; simply because it makes you feel good, makes your dick hard, and you can, because you're bigger and stronger and meaner...

That is unacceptable.

Did you hear what I said? That is *unacceptable*, on any level. There is no restitution, there is no fitting punishment, there is nothing; it is done. That human, along with all their hopes and dreams, all they could have grown into, all the good they could have done, all the love that could have been had; gone forever. All we can do is try our best to prevent, as in, deter, cold blooded predatory murders like that in the first place. But how do you deter a real deal monster? Prison is a deterrent for good people that are tempted to do bad things. A monster is unlikely to be deterred by a prison, especially one where you can get your law degree and have your own private doctor, among other perks.

We really have only one thing over this guy. If you commit this unacceptable crime, then you can't be a part of our society any longer, in prison or anywhere else. That's what unacceptable means. And if you can accept this kind of behavior from predators, content with simply depriving them of their right to go to the mall and movie theaters (actually, you can watch movies in prison), then you're a monster too.

"I was lucky to escape the environment, ..."

What you just described wasn't luck.

What you just described, was hard work on the part of yourself and your parents.

I think his point was that Obama wouldn't have been on the ticket in the first place. If it was for a lifetime position, the election would be a *Big Deal*.

And I'm having trouble seeing the downside over what we have now. My main objection, is that it would make us like the Romans. Which means either: The Romans weren't as bad as I thought they were; or I'm already too far gone myself to be worth saving.

Either way, in hindsight, I now regret reading your post.

It's funny, the Dems have moved further left in that time span as well, the parties seem to be further apart than ever. And yet, you can't tell the difference in the two most recent presidents. With the exception of the healthcare law, the policies are barely different; certainly not some night and day difference that the campaign suggested. It's weird.

But don't forget, Reagan was a Democrat. I never held it against a guy that switched parties, except maybe on the eve of some critical vote. It tells me at least that he's not some ideologue, rigidly wedded to 'principle'. He weighs his issues against the two parties, and goes with one. Because we get one of two. Ard if you're not willing, at least in principle, to switch over; then your party affiliation means nothing. Because they've got you by default, is what you're admitting, so then, positions and issues don't matter.

And btw, Reagan did change the GOP, but it took him 8 years or more. He beat the in place, blue blood, Republican machine, and he used Democrat votes to do it. So he sort of cheated, and I think they held it against him.

Sort of what Sarah Palin did. Take away everything she's said, and all the coverage; and simply look at what she's done. Only one thing of note stands out: She rose to prominence by beating the long established Republican machine. She beat the Big Oil money funding that machine, not by using bigger money, but by using Democratic votes, along with some Republican. Populist, they call that. First, by getting Governor, then, by getting that guy tossed out; she got Alaskans like 2 grand a year more on their oil checks. Talk about tax the rich and redistribution and all that stuff, hopefully any Democrat would love to take credit for that one.

Other than that, not much; a minor politician thrust into fame by a desperate John McCain, obviously not ready for prime time, and would not have earned it on her own. It's just her talking really; I can't stand it. I think most people have that. She can't get three sentences out, without lecturing me on the values of the mother bear, or some life lesson, or other thing that annoys me; she's a younger version of my mom. An hour or two, and I'm good for a while, and must get away. ;)

But she hasn't done anything bad, and she's not that radical. Conservative as they come, maybe, but when she showed up for work, the state was apparently governed adequately, with no huge cuts or fundamental changes, and she pulled off a Democrat's wet dream in the short time she was there. That doesn't qualify her for President, btw, and I'd rather not see her there, so you and I have that in common.

Where we might part ways, is if you run her down too much. That's the only thing that's given her any sticking power, is the media focus on her (not that she doesn't eat most of it up), and if you're too mean to her, then you end up forcing me to jump to her defense. We thus end up polarized over nothing, agreeing on many of the issues, and on the fact that we don't want her for President.

Which sentiment exactly? You just said he was right in his facts. How is he supposed to address the problem if you won't allow him to speak on it?

And this is also why this blurb was intended for a handful of faithful supporters and not the general public. He's talking nuts and bolts because these big money guys want to hear specifics. They already heard the commercials like the rest of us; if you want the hundred grand, they want to hear how smart you are. Romney blurts the uncomfortable elephant in the room truth out like somebody that doesn't have time to waste on a bunch of platitudes. A liberal hears that, is offended right off, that one's worth is judged by their income and taxes, especially by a rich man. it figures, huh?

And miss the whole point. Namely, that not only are these people not paying taxes, worse; they are not earning incomes worth taxing. And they still have to live and eat and spend on healthcare the same as the rest of us; 47% of the people are basically not even making a living. They are just squeaking by, or they're falling behind, but they're certainly not creating any wealth, which is what has to happen for us not to go broke. Exactly what this article says by the way: An influx of capital to jump-start business and jobs at the low end of the economy. (I wonder who would have been well qualified for that...)

So he's telling the rich Republican donors exactly the truth, and the real problem that needs to be attacked, and he still can't get a break from you. Okay, you did cut him a bit of a break, but you still couldn't possibly support him? Or the sentiment that some portion of that 47% need jobs? There's no evil there, which I believe you recognized.

Let me tell you something in case you're unaware: We're broke. Well, going broke; it takes a long time in a country this big. Romney would have made us money; that's what he does. He seems to be very good at it. Everything he touches. How many Olympics actually make money? I believe his Utah one did. And it was fucked up when he took over.

Here's another hint. Don't listen to what they say; look at what they've done. I know your biggest fear might be how far he sets back your causes, even while you admit the benefits of fiscal responsibility. But Massachusetts is still a pretty liberal place, in spite of him turning their giant deficit into a surplus, while phasing in universal health coverage, improved schools and tax cuts. They survived Romney.

They did what they had to do, not only to get a guy to run things right for a while, but more importantly maybe, send a message to the other side, which would be your side, that they don't own you, especially if they get too far from the center. And of course that goes for both sides. I wish you'd give me a Democrat I could cross over and vote for btw.

Is the Democrat that followed Romney more fiscally responsible than the ones before? I'm off to see if I can find out.

Yep. First thing I thought.

Actually, the first thing I thought when I heard the term was that it was a Saturday Night Live thing. I remember thinking, 'that's not funny..'

"pretty much by definition"

Uh, no; that's not what the words you posted say. You might think that definition is implied, but you would be incorrect.

Small government does not necessarily mean social inequality or social hierarchies. (btw, name for me a society ever in the history of man, that didn't have an upper crust.)

But I really don't care about social equality. Many of us just want equality under the law. That would be enough, but you won't even allow us that.

Because in your government, each law is 2400 pages long. Filled with exceptions, exemptions, addendums ... A simple working man like myself can't possibly know the law in that case, so he has to take the government employee's word for it. Whatever his title is, he is now Minister of Law, as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm living under the rule of men, instead of the rule of law.