mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-05-25, 20:45   #12
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

7×1,171 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spherical Cow View Post
I say we eliminate anyone with the name of a previous president- We don't need anymore Bushes, Clintons, Kennedies (Kennedi?), Reagans, etc. etc.
So Steven Tyler can't be president? Don Adams? Michael Jackson (any of them), Janet Jackson, Tito? Harrison Ford?
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-25, 20:58   #13
Spherical Cow
 
Spherical Cow's Avatar
 
Nov 2004

2·3·89 Posts
Default

Quote:
So Steven Tyler can't be president? Don Adams? Michael Jackson (any of them), Janet Jackson, Tito? Harrison Ford?
Ah- Harrison Ford and Don Adams would be real losses, but if the rule keeps Michael Jackson off of the ballot, its worth it.

Norm
Spherical Cow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-25, 21:45   #14
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

1127510 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
So Steven Tyler can't be president? Don Adams? Michael Jackson (any of them), Janet Jackson, Tito? Harrison Ford?
Indeed, and in Ford's case, it's a double elimination. (I was virtually certain MJ would also be, but lo and behold, there has never been a US President named Michael. Whodathunkit? The Michaels of the world blast and damn you for losing, Dukakis!)

Other eliminatees:

- George and Louise Jefferson of The Jeffersons (George a double-Elim)
- Jazz singer Grover Washington Jr. (another double-Elim)
- Musician George Clinton of Parliament-Funkadelic fame (yep, you guessed it)
- Garfield the cartoon cat*
- Abigail van Buren (Dear Abby)
- Madison Michelle (that silly host-bimbo on TV Guide channel)
- Truman Capote (were he still alive, that is)
- L. Ron Hoover (founder of the First Church of Appliantology) (ditto)


...and many others who I leave for future posts and posters.

We should also consider extending the rule to exclude people who have spent more than (say) half of their life in cities which share a name wtih a current or former president. This has the obvious benfit of eliminating most long-term members of congress, lobbyists and other government insiders (who spend most of their time in Washington DC). Even if it also winds up excluding folks from places like Cleveland, Adamsville (OH and TN) and Jacksonville FL, I say if it gets rid of the inside-the-DC-beltwayers, it's a price worth paying.

--------------------

*Note there's actually no rule prohibiting a cartoon feline from running for president, as long as it is a natural born citizen of the United States, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years. Based on the age requirement, Garfield would have become eligible in 2013.
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-25, 22:44   #15
Spherical Cow
 
Spherical Cow's Avatar
 
Nov 2004

53410 Posts
Default

Quote:
We should also consider extending the rule to exclude people who have spent more than (say) half of their life in cities which share a name wtih a current or former president.
An insightful extension of the rule- I like it. To be careful, and err on the side of caution, that will probably eliminate all residents of the entire State of Washington, but we therefore also eliminate most of the key employees of MicroSoft....

Norm
Spherical Cow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-26, 02:39   #16
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

45D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
To those who helped vote the Democratic majority in on Capitol Hill in last Fall: is this the kind of "tough action to lead the country out of war" you expected?
I would suggest to those to whom which Ernst refers, if this isn't what you expected of your elected representatives, get mad and raise a stink about it. The war is funded only through September, so this is our best chance to register that we are not going to sit still for a continuation of a blank check policy to continue this stupid war. I think the spectre of a third party running on a peace platform should be enough to wake up the Democrats.

And yes, this is a homework problem!

Last fiddled with by philmoore on 2007-05-26 at 02:41 Reason: Made the assignment mandatory!
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-26, 06:54   #17
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
There, I'm not even sure if that *is* a real name or a made-up sound-effecty one,
It's real: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuPaul_Charles

- - -

Back to the topic:

The present bill is a compromise, and the making of political compromises is like making sausage, I'm told.

The rhetorical value of making the President veto again was balanced against the rhetorical/practical value of sending him a minimum-wage increase etc. (plus (*sigh*) pork-barrel, as all-too-usual) that he couldn't afford to veto.

There's plenty of time before the next Iraq fiscal deadline (September) to plan and construct another war challenge, whereas time before the July deadline for this war supplemental is running short relative to what else needs doing. The balance of practicality was against pressing the anti-war legislation right now.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2007-05-26 at 07:14
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-26, 22:54   #18
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5×701 Posts
Default

As someone who seldom reads the paper and is wise enough to know he's an ignoramus, I'd like to make the following statement/question. I kind of know what the response will be, but maybe someone will clarify why the concept is considered BS. For those of you who'd like to know, I choose not to vote, for the reason that if you're not willing to learn the facts, you shouldn't try to tell the country which way to go. Anyway, here's the question/statement:

"So, you guys don't believe the terrorists will come to the United States, or England, when the militaries leave Iraq?"

Last fiddled with by jasong on 2007-05-26 at 22:55
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-27, 00:43   #19
jinydu
 
jinydu's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48

6DE16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
As someone who seldom reads the paper and is wise enough to know he's an ignoramus, I'd like to make the following statement/question. I kind of know what the response will be, but maybe someone will clarify why the concept is considered BS. For those of you who'd like to know, I choose not to vote, for the reason that if you're not willing to learn the facts, you shouldn't try to tell the country which way to go. Anyway, here's the question/statement:

"So, you guys don't believe the terrorists will come to the United States, or England, when the militaries leave Iraq?"
I have seen how, all too often, statements like that lead to endless empty debates. So instead of giving you a yes or no, let me say this:

The statement that "the terrorists will come to the United States, or England, when the militaries leave Iraq" is, from a strictly logical point of view, not well-defined because there are two phrases in it that are not well-defined: "the terrorists" and "come". I single out the word "come" because, while we know what it means for an individual to come to a physical location, it is not clear what it means for a group to come to a physical location. Do you mean that each individual in the group comes to the location, or only that a certain proportion comes, or [insert another definition here]. Until those two terms are defined, any debate on the statement will be vague and logically shaky. Note that definitions must be precise (no ambiguity in their meaning), necessary and sufficient.

I'm not saying that rational debate on the statement is impossible, only that more definitions are required first. It is sort of like if I ask "Do you own a asdfoqnpoenqwpfoihe?" Evidently, you would not be able to answer the question unless I provided you with a definition of a asdfoqnpoenqwpfoihe. It is the same problem here, albeit a lot more subtle. One cannot really determine whether a statement is correct or not until one knows exactly what the statement means.

Last fiddled with by jinydu on 2007-05-27 at 01:01
jinydu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-27, 00:44   #20
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

2·3·1,151 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
I choose not to vote, for the reason that if you're not willing to learn the facts, you shouldn't try to tell the country which way to go.
Bravo, I wish the other ill-informed 90% of the voting public would exercise similar restraint.

Quote:
"So, you guys don't believe the terrorists will come to the United States, or England, when the militaries leave Iraq?"
They will come whether the military is in Iraq or not.

Last fiddled with by Prime95 on 2007-05-27 at 00:44
Prime95 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-27, 02:20   #21
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
"So, you guys don't believe the terrorists will come to the United States, or England, when the militaries leave Iraq?"
Do you think foreign militaries in Iraq are inhibiting terrorists from coming to the US or UK _now_? If so, just how are those foreign militaries accomplishing that?

Terrorists are under no law or compulsion to request and receive permission from foreign militaries in Iraq before entering the US or UK.

The March 2004 train bombings in Madrid occurred when the foreign militaries had already been in Iraq a year (though I note you didn't ask about Spain). The July 7, 2005 suicide bombings in London occurred over 2 years after the invasion of Iraq began in 2003.

(If anyone says, "But the London bombers were already in the UK (in fact, UK citizens IIRC)", my reply will be, "Aha! Foreign militaries in Iraq didn't prevent home-grown terrorism, either.")

Try a Google search on "terrorist bombings 2006".

As I've pointed out before, the continued presence of foreign armies in Iraq is providing an ideal training opportunity for terrorists. Where else could they have such realistic practice and experimentation, or such rewarding successes for so little effort? Have you noticed the reported trend, over time, of improvements in improvised explosive devices employed by those terrorists against those armies? "Practice makes perfect."

Not to mention the marvelous opportunity for terrorist organizations to motivate young people to join them!

Some terrorists genuinely want foreign armies to leave Iraq, but others genuinely want them to stay. The former want their country (or another country) to be freed from foreign interference and domination, because their loyalty is to that country. The latter want to perpetuate their organizations' opportunity of training and recruiting, because their loyalty is to their organization. So we seldom or never see insurgents actually employing their optimum strategy to persuade the foreign armies to leave ASAP -- instead we see a mix.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2007-05-27 at 03:19 Reason: various corrections
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-27, 03:26   #22
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

(continued)

... a mix that inflicts "pain" on the foreign armies, but also keeps tempting them to stay (so some foreign politicians will keep saying, "Just give our military a little more time and a few more troops, and we'll defeat the insurgency" -- it's a form of sucker trap).

(BTW, I've fallen for sucker traps a few times. Once I entered a contest that seemed easy, but each succeeding round required just one more fee, and eventually the difficulty would be near-infinte before a contestant could win a prize. My smart girlfriend snapped me out of it just after I'd mailed the third-round fee IIRC.)

(And if anyone says, "Oh, so that means you want our military to just drop everything and scramble out of Iraq as fast as possible", my reply will be, "No, I already previously warned against stupidity, and all my later comments need to be understood in that non-stupidity/non-extremist context." I'm sure the US military is quite capable of making and executing an optimum disengagement plan if allowed to do so.)

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2007-05-27 at 03:55
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LLRnet supports LLR V3.8! (LLRnet2010 V0.73L) kar_bon No Prime Left Behind 168 2010-12-08 22:45
question range 1 billion to 2 billion? Unregistered Information & Answers 7 2010-08-12 06:25
Thoughts on President Bush's January 10 speech about Iraq cheesehead Soap Box 173 2008-07-12 22:24
Does Bush think God's irrational? jasong Soap Box 8 2006-05-22 17:32
Bush vs. Clinton nomadicus Soap Box 51 2003-12-12 21:53

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:43.

Sat Jul 4 11:43:37 UTC 2020 up 101 days, 9:16, 1 user, load averages: 1.87, 1.71, 1.60

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.